Any word on the return-type const syntax?

[Christopher Wright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 12/7/07, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> That can now be done with a template.
> 
> Not if we're talking virtual member functions, it can't.

I dislike that limitation of virtual methods and templates, but I don't 
see a clean and efficient way around it. I should spend a couple years 
working on it and then publish a paper on the topic, and then submit a 
patch to bugzilla based on the work.