On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 07:06:47PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
> So, while a C++ programmer expects that
>
> int f2() const
>
> means that f2 is const, they're likely to be surprised by the fact that in
>
> const int f1()
>
> it's the int that's const, not f1.
[...]
Wait, I thought 'const int f1()' means that 'int f1(const this, ...)',
not the other way round?
I guess you're trying to say that in C++:
const int f();
means the return value is 'const int', but in D:
const int f();
means the same thing as 'int f() const', and the return value is 'int'.
Is that correct?
//
Anyway, I find this variable syntax a bit annoying. The basic syntax of
a function is:
<return type> <func_name>(<args...>) { <body> }
But now we have additional modifiers like 'pure', 'lazy', 'const', etc.,
and syntax becomes:
<modifiers> <return type> <func_name>(<args...>) <more_modifiers> {
<body> }
Which makes sense, since then you can write 'pure int f()' which reads
nicely. However, in the case of const, it's very confusing because
you're used to writing 'const <typename>' to mean 'const(<typename>)',
yet here 'const int f()' means 'const(int f())' rather than 'const(int)
f()':
class A {
const int f();
}
auto a = new A;
const int x; // typeof(x) == const(int)
auto y = a.f(); // typeof(y) == int
This is a visual ambiguity with the basic pattern '<return type>
<func_name>(...)', which I find very jarring.
Should I file an issue for this? :)
T
--
I think Debian's doing something wrong, `apt-get install pesticide',
doesn't seem to remove the bugs on my system! -- Mike Dresser
