Any word on the return-type const syntax?

[Walter Bright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> I know there was a suggestion in the Walter/Andrei document, but has
> it been finalised?
> 
> I'm referring to the ability to define the constancy/invariance of the
> return type in terms of the constancy/invariance of a calling
> parameter, in order to avoid having to write the same function three
> times.

That can now be done with a template.