any news on const/invariant?

[Bill Baxter]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Derek Parnell" wrote
>> Also, what is the syntax now for declaring a const function that returns a
>> const value?
> 
> const const(int)* f(){ ... }
> or
> const(int)* f() const { ... }
> 
> This REALLY REALLY needs an example in the docs.  Walter, please do 
> something about this.  The const void f() example doesn't cut it, especially 
> for C++ defectors.  I had to ask this question a while back in the learn NG 
> after carefully examining the docs :)
> 
> Also, will the following compile?
> 
> const int* f1() const {...}

Currently:
Yes if f1 returns the address of a global or 'null'.
No if it tries to return pointer to member of the class.

Should probably be:
No always.
(Since "const const int* f1" is a "repeated storage class error", 
putting the redundant const at the end should be an error too, I think)

> invariant int* f2() const {...}

Same thing.
Yes if you return a pointer that's not part of the class scope.
No if you return something that is class scope.

Should also be no on both counts I think.

> And if they do, what do they mean?

They mean the compiler is too leniant. :-)

--bb