transporting qualifier from parameter to the return value

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-12-15 23:04:38 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:

> 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.

autoconst?

It goes in the same vein as "auto ref" Walter just introduced to do 
mostly the same thing with ref (but limited to function templates).


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/