On Monday, December 24, 2012 14:32:55 monarch_dodra wrote: > "ref" is a function qualifier, not a type qualifier, so you could > even write it as: > "const(ReturnType) foo() const ref;" > > So technically, it is symetric.
I'm pretty sure that ref is nonsensical in that example. What would ref on a function even mean? It could be used on a function pointer, but then you'd have to have the function keyword in there. It makes no sense on a function prototype like you have there. If that compiles, it's because dmd allows you to put all kinds of modifiers on symbols where the modifier has no effect and arguably shouldn't be legal. > I for one don't think this is a huge problem. There is *some* > confusion for those comming from C++, but they (we) have to learn > D is not C++. Besides, I like the liberty of putting all > qualifiers on the line before the types, including const. > > If anything "const" *itself* is VERY confusing for new commers. > WAY more than the syntax used to qualify a function with it. You're likely to be told to move the const to the right if one of us notices it on the left in a pull request. I believe that quite a few of us consider it to be bad practice to put it on the left. - Jonathan M Davis
