On Saturday, 30 March 2013 at 14:37:11 UTC, Namespace wrote:
That's nice to hear. I was afraid I would be too intrusive on
this.
And I've finally did it: A& works now. It was a bit tricky, but
now it works nicely. Here a quick example:
void bar1(A& a) { } // OK
void bar2(A&* a) { } // Error: '&' can not be used in
combination with '*'
void bar3(A*& a) { } // Error: '&' can not be used in
combination with '*'
void bar4(const A& a) { } // OK
void bar5(ref A& a) { } // Error: conflicting storage class '&'
and ref
and for templates:
void bar(T)(T& t) {
writeln(t);
}
Thoughts?
It's esoteric, which is bad, but concise, which is good. I think
perhaps the annoying aspect of this feature is how attractive it
would be to just get the power of the feature implicitly without
needing a new attribute or keyword. To get it implicitly, and
only have an attribute for when you *don't want an rvalue, e.g.:
void foo(@lvalue ref T a) {}
...would break code, but is nonetheless less something to
consider also.
