On 10 May 2013 08:50, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:

On 05/09/2013 11:35 PM, Manu wrote:

...

I don't think this is entirely true, auto ref is a template concept,

In the current implementation, but not necessarily.

It should stay that way. It's reasonable what it does in it's current implementation.

that is, "automatic ref-ness", it selects the ref-ness of the argument
automatically, at compile time, just like auto applied everywhere else
(selects a type for instance, at compile time).

auto was carried over from C and originally stands for local lifetime. It does _not_ mean "apply type deduction here".

Eh? 'local lifetime' doesn't sound like it has anything to do with 'apply type deduction here' to me; which is what D does.

This concept doesn't
make any sense applied to a non-template. It *IS* a ref as specified by
the programmer, there's nothing 'automatic' about it.

Most keywords are poorly chosen.

Is this an argument to continue that trend?

That said, I don't find this to be particularly true. Most things make reasonable sense.

So to say it will do 'exactly the same thing' is a misunderstanding. I
argue that 'auto ref' as applied to non-templates will only create
confusion, it effectively re-enforces the type of confusion that you
have just shown.

This is the reasoning for the argument behind scope ref, which to my
mind actually makes good sound sense, and should lead people to a proper
understanding of what you are actually doing.
Considering the key argument against 'scope ref' is that people don't
want to require more attributes to make use of it,

This is inaccurate.

It's the most consistent argument against scope-ref.