digitalmars.D - Re: Const function
- Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> Dec 04 2007
- Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> Dec 04 2007
Graham St Jack Wrote:On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:16:40 -0500, Gilles G. wrote: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();
I've seen Walter argue that he wants to be able to declare const functions in batch with const{ T foo(); T bar(); } I guess you could say that he wants const{X;} and const X; to be the same, but doesn't want const(X) and const X to be the same. There's nothing like mixing two hotly debated threads together! I apologize in advance for it. I just couldn't resist since the parallels were so striking.
Dec 04 2007
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:48:10 -0500, Jason House wrote:Graham St Jack Wrote:On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:16:40 -0500, Gilles G. wrote: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();
I've seen Walter argue that he wants to be able to declare const functions in batch with const{ T foo(); T bar(); } I guess you could say that he wants const{X;} and const X; to be the same, but doesn't want const(X) and const X to be the same. There's nothing like mixing two hotly debated threads together! I apologize in advance for it. I just couldn't resist since the parallels were so striking.
I would have to argue that const {W;} and const X; are the same while const W* var; and const(W*) var; are different. As described in "Teach Yourself C++ in 21 Days" a block/compound statement is used to act as one statement. That is to say that only single statements are acceptable. That is to say that {W;} is in fact only X. Now look at the second case, const must be applied to something after it, Janice assumes that it would stop at the *. However if we continue and let W* var = X then we get const(X); with the latter being const(X) var; My question is why does const X var; have to equal const(X) var? Wouldn't it be legitimate to change ones thinking such that const X var is const(X var) even thought it is not valid syntax. I still have a lot to learn and to apply a lot of what I know, but after reading posts and reading to understand const and its applications, I see the current syntax to work well, even though I don't think it is explained very well.
Dec 04 2007