transporting qualifier from parameter to the return value

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:04:38 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> 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.

"virtual" const :)

My original proposal called the technique "Scoped" const, which I think is  
pretty accurate, since the data is const only for the scope of the  
function.  perhaps sconst?

or aconst for "any" const?

In any case inout is fine by me if that's what gits 'er done.  The only  
problem I see with inout is that it has legacy issues.

-Steve