On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 02:41:12 UTC, Manu wrote:
He's trying to say that C++ introduced rvalue references
because normal references weren't able to allow for move
semantics to exist. It's a red-herring. D already has move
semantics, they work well, and they're not on trial here.
In C++'s case, it's not that references were deficient at being
references that C++ needed rval-references, it's that
references were
deficient at being move-able.
There were deficient at being moveable because temporaries can
bind to const T&.
That is not a problem that exists in D.
Because temporaries can't bind to ref const(T).
It's fine for references to
just be references in D. We're not struggling to make references
move-able in D, that's not a thing, we already have move
semantics.
Any extension of this conversation about references into C++
rvalue-references (T&&) and or move-semantics are red-herrings.
There's no such problem in D that needs to be resolved, and the
existing solution is excellent.
If I'm reading you correctly (which I might not), you seem to be
saying that there's a way forward in which:
1) D's move semantics aren't affected
2) No rvalue references are introduced
3) Temporaries can bind to ref const(T)
I'd love to know what that would look like.
Atila
