On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 16:44, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 15:57, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Any solution to a C++ problem that starts with "let's add a new
>> reference type to the language" is not a solution worth having.
>> There's really no point in considering it further.
>>
>> However, if this were to be entertained further, then some explanation
>> of what's actually happening here is in order. You say that your new
>> reference type means that the "argument must be a prvalue?". OK, but
>> then you say "we need control over when the prvalue gets generated ".
>>
>> This makes no sense. The fact that a variable must be initialized by a
>> prvalue doesn't change how variables work. "when the prvalue gets
>> generated" happened *before the function call*. If you want it to
>> happen differently from that, then you need to explain what those
>> differences are and how that works. Are you saying that the parameter
>> captures the entire expression, leaving it unevaluated until some time
>> *within* the function (which is not what it means for a variable to
>> "be a prvalue")? OK, so how does that work? Must the function be
>> inlined? If not, how can a compiler pass *arbitrary code* to a
>> concrete function that has no idea how any particular parameter was
>> initialized?
>>
>
> That seems related to
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0927r2.pdf
>

>
>>
>> Overall, this idea doesn't even seem half-baked. I guess I shouldn't
>> be surprised given the source.
>>
>

Just stop replying to him. He clearly has no intention of doing anything
except throwing silly ideas out again and again and again. Engaging with
him clearly doesn't discourage him. Maybe ignoring him will.