On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's not a false equivalence fallacy: all the discussion is > > about IMPLICIT conversion or rvalues to lvalues. > Yes it is, the issues regarding rvalue/lvalue conversion is not > the same issues regarding the unsigned/signed conversion.
I don't want to encourage this tangent, but I do want to say; there's no proposal of rvalue -> lvalue *conversion*. The proposal is "ref accepts rvalues". There's no 'conversion' anywhere in sight. That's not on the menu.
