On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:39:16 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On Monday 24 January 2011 06:27:34 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:20:17 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
<jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
> On Monday 24 January 2011 05:56:49 Trass3r wrote:
>> class F
>> {
>> const Foo bar();
>> }
>>
>> Isn't this ambiguous? "returns a const Foo object" vs. "is a const
>> member function that returns a Foo object"?
>
> When using const or immutable in a function signature, it _always_
> applies to
> the function, unless you use parens to say otherwise.
>
> const Foo bar(); //const function
> Foo bar() const; //const function
> immutable Foo bar(); //immutable function
> Foo bar() immutable; //immutable function
> const(Foo) bar(); //mutable function with const return value
> const(Foo) bar() const; //const function with const return value
> immutable(Foo) bar(); //mutable function with immutable return value
> immutable(Foo) bor() immutable; //immutable function with immutable
> return value
You forget my favorite:
const const Foo bar(); // const function returning const Foo.
That works? I would have thought that it still would have required the
parens.
I could have sworn it does, but on testing (which I probably should have
done), it fails (even back on 2.033) with:
redundant storage class const
Sorry for the noise, I still find the const const(Foo) bar() very
confusing to read.
-Steve
