On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:18:41 UTC, Diggory wrote:
I'd still like someone to explain how exactly "scope ref" would
differ from "ref" if DIP25/DIP35 were implemented.
If the only difference is that "scope ref" can accept rvalues
then why would you ever use normal "ref"? There are no extra
restrictions needed on "scope ref" over and above normal "ref"
under the assumption of DIP25/DIP35.
No it is not the only difference. "scope ref" (as proposed in
DIP35) is more restrictive in usage - can't take address of it,
can't return it, can't implicitly cast it to normal ref. It is
"scope" primarily and "rvalue ref solution" only secondarily.
