On Friday, 20 July 2018 at 13:21:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, July 20, 2018 05:16:53 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
I am completely against allowing ref to accept rvalues without
some sort of attribute indicating that it should be allowed to
(e.g. @rvalue ref). Allowing ref to accept rvalues goes
completely against the idea that ref is for passing an object
so that it can be mutated and have its result affect the
caller. With this DIP, we'd likely start seeing folks using ref
all over the place even when it has nothing to do with having
the function mutating its arguments, and that's not only
error-prone, but it obfuscates what ref was originally intended
for.
[...]
I kinda agree with this, just not so strongly I think.
But as for a UDA, maybe @implicit from the copy constructor DIP
can be reused here?
void f(@implicit ref A a) {}
On a side note, I'm not familiar with the talks that've gone
around the keyword "in", and I see there's a deprecation issue on
bugzilla [1]. Can "in" be added here? "in ref" or just repurposed
completely?
Cheers,
- Ali
[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18604
