On Tuesday, 1 January 2013 at 01:10:20 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> On Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 16:11:44 UTC, jerro wrote:
>> On Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 16:00:22 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>>> Just hope for the best. Did you create a pull request?
>>
>> No. I need to first make it work correctly with const at the very least.
>
> Sorry if I seem intrusive, but how does it look? Do you have it so far that it works with const?

It does work with const now.

On Tuesday, 1 January 2013 at 11:17:36 UTC, jerro wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 January 2013 at 01:10:20 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> On Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 16:11:44 UTC, jerro wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 16:00:22 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>>>> Just hope for the best. Did you create a pull request?
>>>
>>> No. I need to first make it work correctly with const at the very least.
>>
>> Sorry if I seem intrusive, but how does it look? Do you have it so far that it works with const?
>
> It does work with const now.

So it is ready to merge?

I took over your changes into my current project (which isn't that small) and it works very well.

> So it is ready to merge?

I honestly don't know. I don't know enough about the DMD code base to be confident that there aren't some serious problems with my changes.

Another problem is that it isn't entirely clear how auto ref is supposed to work. Should auto ref on templates work as it does now or should it be the same as auto ref on non template functions? How should auto ref affect overloading?

Maybe it's best to just make a pull request and let others inspect the changes and discuss the semantics of auto ref. Or maybe it would be better to make a thread in digitalmars.D first?

But in any case, I strongly doubt this has any chance of being in 2.061.

> Maybe it's best to just make a pull request and let others inspect the changes and discuss the semantics of auto ref. Or maybe it would be better to make a thread in digitalmars.D first?

In my opinion you should do both, thread and also pull request.
I thank you again for your work. I'm using it already.

> In my opinion you should do both, thread and also pull request.
> I thank you again for your work. I'm using it already.

I have opened a pull request now and replied to the thread about auto ref on digitalmars.D.

On Wednesday, 2 January 2013 at 01:05:09 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> Maybe it's best to just make a pull request and let others inspect the changes and discuss the semantics of auto ref. Or maybe it would be better to make a thread in digitalmars.D first?
>
> In my opinion you should do both, thread and also pull request.
> I thank you again for your work. I'm using it already.

It turns out there already was a pull request that does this:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019

If you are going to use code that is not merged yet, then maybe it's better to use that one (I've closed my pull request).

> It turns out there already was a pull request that does this:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019

The pull request is still unmerged. Isn't this important enough or is the pull invalid?

On Sunday, 13 January 2013 at 09:50:37 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> It turns out there already was a pull request that does this:
>>
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019
>
> The pull request is still unmerged. Isn't this important enough or is the pull invalid?

The question is still there. Will the pull merged in the near future or not?
I'm asking because I'm afraid that it takes several months until D has 'auto ref'.

> It turns out there already was a pull request that does this:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019
>
> If you are going to use code that is not merged yet, then maybe it's better to use that one (I've closed my pull request).

Maybe you should reopen your pull, we need definitely a solution for this problem.
It seems that the other pull isn't finished in the next two release cycles.
We know that your code works partially, that is better than further releases without an auto ref...