opMul

[Dave]

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.t7pz1mgy1hx7vj at spill04.lan...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:00:37 +0100, Janice Caron <caron800 at googlemail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/2008, Dave <Dave_member at pathlink.com> wrote:
>>>  Janice, why has it been "shot down" in the past?
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>
>> Simple answer: Walter either doesn't like it or has more important
>> things to work on.
>>
>> In fairness, this isn't the /only/ idea which has been suggested, and
>> I think some people did complain about the extra typing it would need.
>> Another suggestion was
>>
>>     T const f()
>>
>> (the idea being that const applies to whatever is immediately to its
>> right). I do kinda like that one too, but Walter shot that one down,
>> primarily I think because it means you can't group multiple functions
>> together under a single "const" attribute. The "const(this)" idea
>> doesn't suffer from that disadvantage, but it does mean more typing,
>> and I think that so long as "the ranks are split", so to speak, then
>> there's no compelling reason for Walter to move to any particular
>> choice of solution.
>>
>> ...indeed, I don't think he even acknowledges that there's a problem.
>> I recall Walter saying that people will just get used to it (that's
>> from memory, not an exact quote - I apologise if I got that wrong), in
>> much the same way that we've got used to C++'s const syntax being
>> inconsistent.
>>
>> Personally, I like "const(this)", despite the extra typing, because it
>> opens the door for future expansion (e.g "const(outer)" meaning "this
>> function will not modify outer").
>>
>> Dunno if that answers the question or not. Probably not, but I tried.
>
>
> With trailing const being allowed, I see no problem with T const f(),
> and I think it is the most obvious way to write it. For preceding
> 'const', one logical step would be to allow only const: and const(X):
> to be placed in front of functions, and disallow const T f().
>
> -- Simen

Actually, now that I see that:

const T function_without_this(){}

is not allowed, I think the current idiom is acceptable because it's 
consistent.