On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 08:54:09 Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 02:56:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > So, probably the best route at this point is to come up with a
> > new attribute
> > which is replace with ref in the function definition and
>
> When you say "replace with ref", does that mean 'ref' won't
> appear in the common case?
>
> ref T fc(scope int a) {}
>
> The problem would be that 'scope' would behave differently,
> implying 'ref' with a value type, from with a reference type, in
> which it shouldn't imply 'ref'. I don't know if it makes sense to
> automatically promote the meaning of 'scope' to include 'ref' for
> value types while leaving it alone for reference types. This was
> objected to by others, but if it were provably harmless to allow,
> it would be an appearance improvement.

You misunderstand me (possibly because I didn't proofread what I wrote). What
I mean is that the way that auto ref should work with non-templated functions
is that

auto foo(auto ref T param) {...}

becomes

auto foo(ref T param) {...}

underneath the hood. Then when you pass an rvalue to it - e.g. foo(T(5)) -
that gets translated to something like

T __temp = T(5);
foo(__temp);

Then auto ref works with both lvalues and rvalues with only one function
definition, and ref is unchanged in how it works (it still only accepts
lvalues).