## digitalmars.D - Re: Const function

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
```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
Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
```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