transporting qualifier from parameter to the return value

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-12-15 22:41:19 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:
> 
>> 2. the choice of inout is not my first choice, I'd prefer a new 
>> keyword.   The inout compromise was meant to subvert the "we already 
>> have too many  keywords" argument (it was Janice's idea).  If there 
>> are no objections, I  prefer what the DIP proposed, vconst.  All I'm 
>> saying is, reusing inout is  *not* a very important part of the proposal.
> 
> Seconded. In fact, we could just remove inout from the keyword list if 
> we care about not augmenting the number of keywords.

Regardless of legacy, I personally find "inout" more suggestive - the 
qualifier goes from input to output. vconst doesn't quite tell me 
anything. I don't even know what "v" stands for.

Andrei