On 10 May 2013 09:20, Rob T <al...@ucora.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 9 May 2013 at 22:42:14 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> And it's >> >>> even questionable that scope as originally intended can be properly >>> implemented anyway. >>> >>> >> ...so, the problem is no different than 'auto ref' as you mention above. >> It's not implemented as drafted, and we're debating what's actually >> correct. Clearly the draft was incomplete in both cases. >> I only support the proposal (from others) that scope ref makes so much >> more >> sense, and I think we've also proven it can be made to work syntactically >> without holes, which I don't believe is so for auto ref. >> >> > However despite the elusiveness of a solution, it looks like we'll be able > to implement auto ref as was originally intended. We may also be able to > implement scope as was originally intended, but not if we use it for > another purpose. >
Except that auto ref as originally intended seems to have been a flawed design, as evidenced by the massive waves this issue keeps creating. the scope ref proposal does not interfere with scope as originally intended, it is a natural extension of the concept... unless I don't understand scope as originally intended properly (which is possible, it's barely documented). In any event you may want to use scope ref to prevent escapes and also > refuse to use rvalues, so it is not a good solution for that reason alone. Why? Why would a function want to receive a temporary but not an implicit temporary?