Wouldn't one want to use 'f(std::forward(x))' with 'auto&&' ?

I think the example with function application is a bad one here - moving the element potentially leaves it in an undefined state. It would be a better example if the code did something with x instead of calling a function on it.

So I don't think you'd want to forward it. Note that you also need the element's type to forward it, which isn't possible in general with the example's signature.

This has been slightly confusing to me, but the syntax auto&& might not mean an rvalue reference. According to the post, it means a universal reference. I wish they would have made a different syntax. For example, with templates, my understanding is:

void somefunction(int && i) // i is an rvalue reference

template<typename T> void somefunction2(T && i) // i is a universal reference

It might be a similar thing with auto&&. So I would tentatively agree that std::forward should be used.

Yes in this case it's a universal reference, I'm aware. Universal references work with auto&&. What std::forward does is the following:

- if you put in an rvalue reference, it's like std::move

- if you put in anything else, it does nothing.

So my point about the article's formulation ("when you want to modify elements in the range in generic code") and its example remains.

I have improved the example in the article to make the code less confusing. Now, a value is assigned to each element in the range and there is no function call.

Thanks, that's clearer.

I used to think like that a lot but more and more I wonder if it is really a good idea to go through life in a way so you have it nice when you retire.

I currently am doing something very similar, and I feel pretty strongly that I could literally do this until I die, just like I plan to do my music gigs until I die.

Literally, I am billing < 20 hours a week, and unless I become disabled and/or get dementia/Alzheimers, I feel that I will like doing what I am doing in some form or other forever.

I've done a lot of different things in my life, and this _is_ having it nice. It's far nicer than the "retirements" of many of my friends in their 70s, though I will grant it is not as plush or completely free of pressure as my parents' retirements as school teachers/administrators.

Yeah I'm doing something similar. The hours I work varies, this week I'm waiting for a client to get back to me about some stuff so it'll be < 20 hours, but I never work more than 40. As you say I could probably do this until I die. I don't have a family yet though, I'm sure things will be different then.

I'm also travelling in SE Asia so my outgoings are very low. I didn't realise how cheap it was here. I'm bringing in nearly 5x (before tax) of what I'm spending.

As if science wasn't a belief system as well. As long as the source of your ideas is observation (as in all sciences) you have nothing but belief.

The advantage of science isn't that it can proof stuff (which it can't) but that it is open for change instead of being dogmatic.

Actually, the advantage of science is that it can predict the future in an accurate fashion.

Ergo: I know x will happen because when all the variables are the same in the past, x has always happened.

The accuracy of the prediction is what changes in science, which is why it is a better system to use for predicting future events than other dogma based systems.

Ergo: Recently discovered factor y can be changed as a variable, and this accounts for x sometimes not happening the same way. We must account for this as a variable too.

Randomness isn't exactly how most people would define control either.

Nevertheless, I agree with your critique of determinism. Think outside the "system". Nobody knows why stuff exists or why it behaves the way it does, it's all just observation and ideas.