Fernando Cacciola wrote:
It could help if you voiced your opinion on the problems posed by your model (that is, that the effect of assignment would depend on the lvalue being absent or not). The only thing I heard from you on this point since I raised it for the first time years ago was "it doesn't look good, right". If this problem had not existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only way out I see is to figure out how to weight the problems and cons of each model. Simply restating the cons of one of them isn't enough.
Well, first of all, let me apologize for my tone and giving up too easily. FWIW, if I recall correctly what I said was more than "it doesn't look good", but I don't recall now. As far as I'm concerned, I always thought that what I was against was (and is) for special handling and special cases. I've always stated that the tuple<T&> behavior should be the model (actually, to be more basic: struct { T& x; } ). The nullability aspect is *besides* the point and has nothing at all to do with the rebinding semantics. I remember saying "when in doubt, do as the structs do. There's definitely some doubt. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net