From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-02 16:19:32
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> True, but much of this is only needed for the *const* rvalue stuff.
>> If there were general agreement that there's fat to trim (is there?),
>> dropping *const* rvalue support would be an easy target.
>
> Don't do it! I plan to write some functions that return const
> rvalues. Plus, Scott Meyers recommends it, so you'll encounter it.
Const rvalues aren't movable, though. :-)