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.
Maybe you're right. But I like the idea that, if you want strict
lvalues, you use 'ref' and if you don't care, you use the C++
style. I think that would be the best idea.
But currently I have a problem with the implemenation of 'A&'. I
do not know how to convey the fact that behind the type is a '&'.
IMO the correct D way is to create a new type like TypePointer ->
TypeRvRef. But my attempts failed so far to create such type.
Because of that I decided to declare a boolean flag 'isRvRef'
inside of the basic Type struct which I set to TRUE if a '&' is
behind the type. This works and don't break any code but I think
that should be fixed by someone with more knowledge.
But I think also that this rvalue problem has a very low priority.
So if we want to resolve this issue, then we need to do it
yourself.
If someone wants to help me, the code and the current solution is
on github:
https://github.com/Dgame/dmd/tree/rvalueRef
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.
Walter hate to break code, so the introduction of that would be
even much less likely.
And yes you're right, when I said 'property' I meant an
attribute. ;)
