On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 13:36:42 Namespace via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 09:50:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >>> I just want to be able to pass an rvalue to a function that
> >>> receives a
> >>> const ref... that's why I came to this forum in the first
> >>> place like,
> >>> 7 years ago. 7 years later... still can't.
> >>
> >> I recently wrote a PR for p0nce D idioms, which shows how you
> >> can do that
> >> https://github.com/p0nce/d-idioms/pull/119
> >
> > there is a huge difference between "i can hack around it" and
> > "i can do it".
> True. ;) It's like the static-array-without-length-and-gc hack.
> You can do it with language constructs but it's inconvenient. So
> it's up to Walter and Andrei to decide if this inconvenience is
> bearable or not.

Andrei decided ages ago that he didn't think that having const ref take
rvalues was a good idea and that he doesn't think that it's a big deal. I
don't recall whether Walter has said much on the issue, but AFAIK, he hasn't
said anything to contradict that, and Andrei has been very vocal about how
rvalue references were a horrible mistake in C++ and that he doesn't want to
see anything of the sort in D. auto ref parameters solve the problem on
some level, and it seems that that's the closest you're going to get to
getting rvalue references in the language. I think that it's pretty clear
at this point that it's not very likely that anyone is going to change
Andrei's mind on this one.

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to