On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 01:33:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

The most recent discussion where Walter and Andrei were part of the discussion
was here:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/4F84D6DD.5090405@digitalmars.com

That thread is quite misleading and, I'm sad to say, not very useful (rather damaging to this discussion) in my opinion - especially because the distinction between rvalue => 'const ref' and rvalue => ref is largely neglected, and that distinction is of extremely high importance, I can't stress that enough. Walter's 3 C++ examples (2 of them invalid anyway afaik) don't relate to _const_ references. The implicit type conversion problem in that thread isn't a problem for _const_ references, just to point out one tiny aspect.
rvalue => ref/out propagation makes no sense imho, as does treating literals as lvalues (proposed by Walter iirc). The current 'auto ref' semantics also fail to cover the special role of _const_ references for rvalues (also illustrated by Scarecrow's post).

Certainly, it's not a simple matter of just making const
ref work with rvalues like most of the people coming from
C++ want and expect.

Well I absolutely do _not_ share this point of view. It just seems so logical to me. I'm still waiting for a plausible argument to prove me wrong. All the required info is in this thread, e.g., we covered the escaping issue you mentioned.