On Thursday, 9 May 2013 at 19:26:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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
So, if I understand correctly, auto ref for templates will end up
doing exactly the same thing as auto ref for non-template
functions? That would be perfect, otherwise it'll be terribly
confusing.
