On Friday, 25 January 2019 at 07:33:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
No, it is not rejected in principle.
Good.
Finding serious errors in it on the eve of approval is
disappointing,
and is not auspicious for being in a hurry to approve it.
Praytell, what serious errors? Also you should heed your own
advice DIP1017 and send it back to draft.
Rvalue references are not a simple problem (although they
appear to be).
Please, do enlighten us..
The statement thing is a "do what I meant, not what I wrote"
example,
_You_ removed the semicolons. The DIP applying to statements was
at worst implied by their use, and frankly quite obvious, how
else could they transcend multiple expressions?
You're leaving him to design where the temporaries go, where
the gates go, and ensure everything is properly exception safe.
You could have at least had the decency to notify Manu. As noted
elsewhere this problem is nowhere even close to DIP breaking, and
I'm certain he could have resolved that.
