Implicit const

[Ary Borenszweig]

Janice Caron escribió:
> On 03/04/2008, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote:
>>  However, when the compiler compiles getA, it can actually tell pretty
>> easily, that, yeh, getA is really also OK as const.  So at least for such
>> simple cases, it seems that the explicit labeling is not really necessary.
> 
> I've thought about this before, and it seems to me that, if D had
> warnings, it would be a good call to issue a warning for any function
> which /could/ have declared itself const, but didn't. Ditto any
> function parameter.
> 
> Similarly,
> 
>     class C
>     {
>         int f()
>         {
>             return 42;
>         }
>     }
> 
> the compiler is in a position to say "Wait a minute - you could have
> declared f static, but didn't".

But maybe you want that function to be overriden by subclasses. Maybe if 
it were "final int f()", then it could say that.

What about const? Does a const function must be overriden by a const 
function?