What would be the difference between C++11's rvalue reference && (see
for example http://thbecker.net/articles/rvalue_references/section_03.html)
and D's proposed rvalue references (eg http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36) ?

So far I only saw C++'s const & mentioned, but C++11's && seems pretty close.

Which brings yet another naming proposal for D's rvalue reference, namely &&.

On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 23:16:57 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
> What would be the difference between C++11's rvalue reference && (see
> for example http://thbecker.net/articles/rvalue_references/section_03.html)
> and D's proposed rvalue references (eg http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36) ?
>
> So far I only saw C++'s const & mentioned, but C++11's && seems pretty close.
>
> Which brings yet another naming proposal for D's rvalue reference, namely &&.

T& or T&& looks very nice but is far more complicated than scope ref or something like that.
It was huge complicated to implement T& (and as you can see in my thread this still do not work for templates). And as long as Andrei/Walter/Kenji give no response, it is impossible to make a decision.
But I still like T& and T&&. :)

I'm still miss an offical statement from Walter/Andrei/Kenji.
Especially now, because today it is exactly a year past since this topic was the first time officially discussed.