bearophile wrote:
> Jens Mueller:
>
> > I didn't have that impression reading the mentioned bug reports. It
> > seems there is more that I'm missing.
>
> See Walter answers here:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4070
I'm not getting it. In comment 1 Walter refers to const:, const {} and
const (let's say inline) and they are all consistent (all are written
left). That's his point.
And forcing now const for the last syntax to be on the right makes it
inconsistent. So he weighs consistency against the possible confusion
and favors consistency in the end. That is a valid point. I do not see
Walter arguing for consistency with non-type qualifiers. Meaning
Walter's argument is valid but most of us weigh things here differently.
Most favor inconsistency over possible confusion in this case. That's
why the problem is currently solved as a matter of good style. I'd love
to see that change but I think it's unfair to force it on Walter.
Because he is not convinced yet. Next step is either propose a patch
(i.e. trying harder to convince Walter, hoping that a patch may change
things for him.) or document a preferred style in this regard clarifying
the confusion.
Jens
