On 10 May 2013 09:20, Rob T <alanb@ucora.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 at 22:42:14 UTC, Manu wrote:

And it's

even questionable that scope as originally intended can be properly
implemented anyway.

...so, the problem is no different than 'auto ref' as you mention above.
It's not implemented as drafted, and we're debating what's actually
correct. Clearly the draft was incomplete in both cases.
I only support the proposal (from others) that scope ref makes so much more
sense, and I think we've also proven it can be made to work syntactically
without holes, which I don't believe is so for auto ref.

However despite the elusiveness of a solution, it looks like we'll be able to implement auto ref as was originally intended. We may also be able to implement scope as was originally intended, but not if we use it for another purpose.

Except that auto ref as originally intended seems to have been a flawed design, as evidenced by the massive waves this issue keeps creating.

the scope ref proposal does not interfere with scope as originally intended, it is a natural extension of the concept... unless I don't understand scope as originally intended properly (which is possible, it's barely documented).

In any event you may want to use scope ref to prevent escapes and also refuse to use rvalues, so it is not a good solution for that reason alone.

Why? Why would a function want to receive a temporary but not an implicit temporary?