Found this during an IRC discussion with pingwindyktator. Go visit his blog if he ever writes there and if you can read Polish.
Let’s start with some standardese:

As you can see, the alternative tokens are defined to behave exactly the same as their counterparts. So the following code is perfectly well-defined and legit, despite the opinion of your fellow reviewer:
auto and answer = 42; // same as auto&& answer = 42, but using natural language is less confusing |
To be more explicit, we can say it’s a reference:
int const and reference = 42; // both const and reference to int |
And if you want to make everyone aware that the value shall not be changed, say so:
int const and final = 42 |
But managing readability isn’t the only goal to be achieved. You can use it to build suspense:
template<typename... Typenames> void foo(Typenames and... exciting_objects) // yay! { } |
Sometimes, though, that is not enough and you have to express it:
template<typename... Typenames> void foo(Typenames and... boring_objects...) // meh :( { } |
If you want to explicitly link a class member function to its body:
struct foo { void bar() and { // bar() definition here; // actually reference-qualified } }; |
And when you want to write a member function that takes const this and is noexcept, nothing is simpler than
struct foo { void bar() const and noexcept; // actually reference-qualified }; |
You don’t have to just use and. Use bitand to denote lvalue references, but it’s not as pretty:
auto const bitand value = compl 0; // -1 on most systems |
I’m sure people could come up with better examples, but for me, this is already enough.
This is … evil? Twisted? Hilarious? Yes, definitely hilarious. I especially like `void bar() const and noexcept;` which I’m dying to submit for a code review soon … (`int const and final = 42` is a good one too …)