On 20 October 2016 at 11:04, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 5:26 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> Right, I was arguing this for years. Using 'scope' to make the concept >> @safe. >> It seemed that it in the past the key reason for rejecting it was because >> it was >> unsafe to pass an rvalue-temp to a function where it's unknown if the >> function >> can cause it to outlive the function call... scope was the obvious >> resolution to >> that (along with a lot of other issues related to safety). >> > > C++ has had two goes at rvalue references. Any serious proposal for that > for D needs to include an analysis of what went right/wrong with the C++ > one, and how the D one gets it right. > We're not talking about rvalue references...? I'm not sure where this conversation got confused. The only way to move this forward is to write a DIP. Having the various > bits of information spread out over various posts for months (years?) is > never going to work. > Like, 6 or 7 years ;) .. But I think we're talking about different things at this point.
