Returning const? -- A potential solution

[Steve Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:44:48 -0500, Jason House wrote:

> The ugly const thread got me thinking about the old problem of returning
> an input while preserving const safety.  I have an idea that seems
> reasonable...

I agree, it's very reasonable.  That's why I created an enhancement 
bugzilla for it last March (almost a year ago) :)

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1961

I agree the bikeshed color should not be a sticking point, but I do not 
think your proposal of re-using return will work.

Specifically, return(n) in a function body has a meaning already, it 
would be ambiguous to the parser probably.

I don't really love the inout(T) notation that Janice came up with, but 
it has an advantage that no new keywords need to be created.  I'm ok with 
another new keyword or some punctuation/existing keyword combo (e.g. 
const?(T))

But I'm glad we both came up with the same solution, it further gives 
more validation to the idea.  Please vote up my bugzilla report and add 
comments if you want.

-Steve