• Timothee Cour (5/5) Apr 15 2013 What would be the difference between C++11's rvalue reference && (see
• Namespace (11/21) Apr 16 2013 T& or T&& looks very nice but is far more complicated than scope

Timothee Cour <thelastmammoth gmail.com> writes:

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 &&.

"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:

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.