Const function (humble request)

[Gilles G.]

I see I am not the only who don't understand why const function written like this:
    T const myFunction()
was not envisaged.
Could anyone explain why?
Thanks in advance!

--
Gilles


Graham St Jack Wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:16:40 -0500, Gilles G. wrote:
> 
> > (... start a new thread because I just don't know who to reply to)
> > 
> > Many posts about const/invariant talk about the "problem" of defining
> > const functions. Some think we should indicate constness at the end of
> > the function declaration, but it is also possible to do it at the front.
> > So, as far as I understand it, there are two ways to express function
> > constness for now:
> >    const int foo();
> >    int foo() const;
> > To my mind, both solutions are unintuitive. I would expect something
> > like that:
> >    int const foo();
> > Is there any big argument against this?
> 
> I agree. A definition like:
> 
> const T foo();
> 
> looks to me like the returned T is const, and putting the const after the 
> function is way too non-D for me, so all that is left that makes sense is:
> 
> T const foo();