On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 21:55:00 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.
Semantics? Call it a transformation. But it is an implicit
changing of semantics.
Guess you encouraged it :p
