Const function

[Graham St Jack]

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();