On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 10:07:57 UTC, Namespace wrote:
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.
My initial reason was to solve the rvalue ref issue. So it is
completly inverse for me. :-)
And I initially ignored all the threads you have started until
noticed proposal that looked fundamental enough in its nature. :)
Features created to support one specific use case usually are not
worth it. DIP36 as far as I see it is much more about scope than
about rvalues.
