• Gilles G. <schaouette free.fr> Nov 28 2007
• Graham St Jack <Graham.StJack internode.on.net> Dec 02 2007
• Gilles G. <schaouette free.fr> Dec 03 2007

Gilles G. <schaouette free.fr> writes:

(... start a new thread because I just don't know who to reply to)

Many posts about const/invariant talk about the "problem" of defining const
functions. Some think we should indicate constness at the end of the function
declaration, but it is also possible to do it at the front.
So, as far as I understand it, there are two ways to express function constness
for now:
   const int foo();
   int foo() const;
To my mind, both solutions are unintuitive. I would expect something like that:
   int const foo();
Is there any big argument against this?

Graham St Jack <Graham.StJack internode.on.net> writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:16:40 -0500, Gilles G. wrote:

 (... start a new thread because I just don't know who to reply to)
 
 Many posts about const/invariant talk about the "problem" of defining
 const functions. Some think we should indicate constness at the end of
 the function declaration, but it is also possible to do it at the front.
 So, as far as I understand it, there are two ways to express function
 constness for now:
    const int foo();
    int foo() const;
 To my mind, both solutions are unintuitive. I would expect something
 like that:
    int const foo();
 Is there any big argument against this?


I agree. A definition like:

const T foo();

looks to me like the returned T is const, and putting the const after the 
function is way too non-D for me, so all that is left that makes sense is:

T const foo();

Gilles G. <schaouette free.fr> writes:

I see I am not the only who don't understand why const function written like
this:
    T const myFunction()
was not envisaged.
Could anyone explain why?
Thanks in advance!

--
Gilles


Graham St Jack Wrote:

 On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:16:40 -0500, Gilles G. wrote:
 
 (... start a new thread because I just don't know who to reply to)
 
 Many posts about const/invariant talk about the "problem" of defining
 const functions. Some think we should indicate constness at the end of
 the function declaration, but it is also possible to do it at the front.
 So, as far as I understand it, there are two ways to express function
 constness for now:
    const int foo();
    int foo() const;
 To my mind, both solutions are unintuitive. I would expect something
 like that:
    int const foo();
 Is there any big argument against this?


 I agree. A definition like:
 
 const T foo();
 
 looks to me like the returned T is const, and putting the const after the 
 function is way too non-D for me, so all that is left that makes sense is:
 
 T const foo();