On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 03:26:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
And when we argued for altering it so that it operated like
const ref in C++
(which allows const ref in D to continue to function like it
does now), some
folks complained, because they've found the current semantics
of auto ref to
be useful (something to do with propagating the exact, original
type, I
think).
I would expect that auto ref for a template and for a non
template should work in exactly the same way, so why would there
be a difference? If there must be a difference, there should be
different semantics for specifying the difference, otherwise the
inconsistent behaviours among identical semantics will only serve
to confuse people.
--rt
