On 10/19/2016 11:38 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 07:55:19 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
This was C++'s big un' that led to many complications. If the overload
weren't ambiguous, a large part of rvalue references would have been
unneeded. (Universal references would still have been necessary for
perfect forwarding, but that's not the bulk.)
In order to avoid such issues, we steered clear off binding rvalues to
ref parameters in the D language. As I mentioned to Ethan, I do agree a
careful definition may be able to avoid the fallout that happened in
C++. It would be a fair amount of work.
The other big problem is that D's const is so much more restrictive than
C++'s that even if const ref accepted rvalues, a large portion of the time,
it would be too restrictive to be useful.
That's why if we allow binding rvalues to references, we'd allow it
regardless of const. -- Andrei
