On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:11:30 +0100
"deadalnix" <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 05:29:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
> > Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> >> > "deadalnix" <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
> >> >>
> >> >> struct Bar {}
> >> >> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
> >> >>
> >> >> foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
> >> >>
> >> >> I still have code broken all over the place.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC, they tried to include this change in 2.060 (or was it
> >> > 2.059?),
> >> > but due to the major problems it causes, and the fact that
> >> > it *does*
> >> > make sense to use a temporary as an lvalue if you don't
> >> > intend to
> >> > use it again afterwords, there was a big discussion about it
> >> > on the
> >> > beta list and it was ultimately nixed. I'm disappointed to
> >> > see that
> >> > it snuck back.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, fixing the rvalue ref problem is still on the front
> >> burner.
> >
> > Wait, so are you saying that the above code which stopped
> > working in
> > 2.061 will start working again in a later version?
>
> No, I think he meant that breaking that code was actually fixing
> the language because it shouldn't have worked in a first place
> (thing I disagree with but I understand the reasoning).
So then what's this "rvalue ref problem" that's "still on the front
burner"?
