On Thursday, May 09, 2013 19:45:16 Peter Alexander wrote: > It seems that 'auto ref' would be suitable, provided we can find > a way for it to work with normal functions (in a sensible way, > not like templates).
That's trivial enough. All you have to do is lower code like auto foo(auto ref int i) {...} foo(5); to something like auto foo(ref int i) {...} auto __temp = 5; foo(__temp); And temporaries end up on the stack anyway, so you wouldn't really even have to lower it to quite like that, but that's what would be happening conceptually. It's also what would happen if plain ref accepted rvalues. It's just that we avoid certain classes of issues by having something distinct from plain ref for accepting rvalues by ref. The implementation itself is straightforward. If anything, I think that argument comes down primarily to two things: 1. Should plain ref accept rvlaues? 2. If plain ref shouldn't accept rvalues, then what attribute do we use to accept rvalues by ref? And given that the whole point of adding auto ref to the language was to solve exactly this problem, I think that it makes perfect sense to just use auto ref. - Jonathan M Davis