equivariant functions

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

KennyTM~ wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Hmmm, looking at this:
>>>
>>> class Owner
>>> {
>>>   const?(A) a() const?{...}
>>>   const?(B) b() const?{...}
>>>   const?(C) c() const?{...}
>>>   const?(D) d() const?{...}
>>>   const?(E) e() const?{...}
>>>   const?(F) f() const?{...}
>>>   const?(G) g() const?{...}
>>>   const?(H) h() const?{...}
>>>   const?(I) i() const?{...}
>>>   const?(J) j() const?{...}
>>> }
>>>
>>> makes me think if we go with that syntax, Andrei is sooner or later
>>> going to complain about his D code asking him too many questions.  :-)
>>> Eh, I guess he can edit the emacs mode to display const? as
>>> smiley-faces or something.  :-) :-)
>>
>> At this point Walter will intervene with:
>>
>> class Owner
>> {
>>    const?
>>    {
>>       A  a()  {...}
>>       B  b()  {...}
>>       C  c()  {...}
>>       D  d()  {...}
>>       E  e()  {...}
>>       F  f()  {...}
>>       G  g()  {...}
>>       H  h()  {...}
>>       I  i()  {...}
>>       J  j()  {...}
>>    }
>> }
>>
>> which isn't half bad.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Huh? But
> 
>   class Owner {
>     const    // without the “?”
>     {
>       A  a()  {...}
>       B  b()  {...}
>       C  c()  {...}
>       D  d()  {...}
>       E  e()  {...}
>       F  f()  {...}
>       G  g()  {...}
>       H  h()  {...}
>       I  i()  {...}
>       J  j()  {...}
>     }
>   }
> 
> only apply const on the function, but not their return type (i.e. they 
> become
> 
>       A a() const { ... }
>       // etc.
> 
> but not
> 
>       const(A) a() const { ... }
>       // etc.
> 
> )

Yah, but it does not make sense to not apply const? to the return value.

Andrei