Any word on the return-type const syntax?

[Jason House]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> 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.

Does that mean the return keyword affecting an input parameter won't ever be implemented?  IMHO, the return keyword is more elegant than using templates.