How so? It does not break anything, as all "const scope" cases
can be processed with "const scope ref", in fact, compiler
should be allowed to degrade first to latter. Regarding meaning
- if "scope ref" means permissive rvalues (mutable ones), then
"const scope ref" means closer match for C++ "const &" -
constant references that can't escape scope.
What I meant was simply, that users which are using already "in
ref" would get then the error: "redundant storage class: ref"
because 'in' would contains 'ref' already. That's the whole
reason of my rejection. ;)
I actually have an impression you do really want exactly "const
scope ref" considering frequent references to C++.
No, I like to get 'scope ref' just as much as 'in ref' / 'scope
const ref'. Mutable rvalue references are absolutely useful.
How did you get the idea?
