On 2010-12-13 17:54:57 -0500, Don <nos...@nospam.com> said:
BTW the really big problem I have with 'auto ref' is that it isn't 'auto', and it isn't 'ref'. I wouldn't have the same objection to something like 'autoref'.
I don't like "auto ref" as a syntax either, but I also dislike the general direction this solution is leading us to (irrespective of the syntax). One shouldn't have to specify for every function whether the argument should be passed by ref or by copy under the hood. That's just repeating C++ mistake where for certain type you almost always have to use the easy the idiom "const T &" for function parameters. Efficiency should be the default way to pass function parameters around.
I made a proposal earlier that instead of having "auto ref" for this we could have a way to define a struct as being automatically passed by ref in function calls. This way you don't have to remember to pass them by "auto ref" to be efficient, it's done automatically. I said earlier that the default way to pass parameters should be efficient, and this is what it allows.
Earlier proposal: <http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=123991> -- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com http://michelf.com/
