On 4/23/13 10:05 AM, Manu wrote:
I can't see the fault in DIP36's reasoning. It just makes sense. Why is everyone so against it? I'm yet to understand a reason...
1. It defines a new language feature instead of improving the existing ones. At this point in the development of the language, our preference should be putting the existing features in good order.
2. The proposal is sketchy and does not give many details, such as the lifetime of temporaries bound to scope ref objects.
3. The relationship with auto ref is insufficiently described, e.g. there should be clarification on why auto ref cannot be improved to fulfill the desired role.
4. Above all this is a new language feature and again we want to resort to adding new feature only if it is clear that the existing features are insufficient and cannot be made sufficient. In particular we are much more inclined to impart real, demonstrable safety to "ref" and to make "auto ref" work as a reference that can bind to rvalues as well as lvalues.
Andrei
