On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 13:36:38 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 12:40:16 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
That proposal is a 'Syntactic Sugar' feature, that simply hide
what normally need to be explicitly coded: proved a temp
rvalue, pass it to a callable taking ref. What you call
'simplification', I call it 'obfuscation'; what you call
uniformity I call trying to spread a well justified
restriction...
/Paolo
A restriction which causes pointless redundant code for the
caller who doesn't always have source code access. If my old
teacher assistant taught me anything it is this: Redundant code
is bad. You are literately forcing the programmer to create tmp
variables that risk the possibility of being shadowed or worse,
having its value change.
That's an opinion, naturally.
What it's "pointless redundant" for you, it is let's "let's force
the programmer to think about what he is doing, passing an rvalue
by ref" for me, at least.
At best, is "let's catch early some bugs (caused by other
problems as Manu pointed out)", but as Jonathan states.
Your manual solution suggestion have it own set of problems.
Set of problems as automatic promotion or conversion, as decades
of problems with unsigned/signed have proved...
You might as well argue against the foreach statement, because
its "obfuscation"
There's not a magic conversion between apples and oranges in a
foreach loop... ref value apart.
/Paolo
