On Friday, February 15, 2013 22:41:24 Namespace wrote: > Again: My intention was not const&.
I know. What I'm saying applies in general. > And you're right, but there was so many discussions about const& > (since dmd 2.057; also in the last few days) and as every > discussion here: after page 2 is the topic changed. > I'm also very sure that neither Walter nor Andrei see a > (important) reason for something similar as const& because they > don't need it. And if you don't need something, the priority for > such thing is very low. > So everything we can do (after that much requests and > discussions) is to wait what and when they will decide something. > I count the versions. They definitely agree that it's a problem. They just don't see it as having as high a priority as you do. For instance, as far as ref-related problems go, the issue that DIP 25 covers is something that they consider to be a much bigger issue (since it deals with @safe and SafeD). It'll be fixed though. It's just a question of how and when. - Jonathan M Davis