10-May-2013 04:18, Manu пишет:
On 10 May 2013 09:20, Rob T <al...@ucora.com <mailto: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.
Simply put it wasn't ever implemented like it was meant to.
When something doesn't exist it's hard to believe that its broken.
In fact I expected it to mean what you seem to attribute to scope ref
i.e. ~ as C++ const& minus logical const part.
The desire to make 2 versions of function in template case is serving
one use case only - perfect forwarding and IMO is hacky. Funnily tough
this corner-case beast (for templates) is implemented and the chief
usage (for normal functions) isn't.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
