Any word on the return-type const syntax?

[Bill Baxter]

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.

I was hoping the return thing would let us define virtual methods.  A 
template solution won't allow that currently.  Is there a plan to change 
that?

--bb