[Issue 4734] immutable return type specifier without parantheses confuses the compiler

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4734


Stephan Dilly <spam at extrawurst.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |spam at extrawurst.org


--- Comment #3 from Stephan Dilly <spam at extrawurst.org> 2010-08-26 15:14:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> You are absolutely right. I forgot about the ability to make functions
> themselves const/immutable. It would really help if that right-side rule was in
> place, because all this will do right now is cause confusion (unless we get a
> nicer error message, in which case we can keep the flexibility I think..).
> 
> So maybe I should change this to an enhancement request for a better error
> message.

I disagree, just like any other storage class the current annotating enables
the user to group blocks of methods with equivalent storage classes like this:

class Foo{
static{
void foo();
}

const{
const(ConstReturnVal) bar();
}
}

it is nothing but consistent and should stay as it is.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------