im Wrote:

> I read the page: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/const3.html under section "Const Member Functions"
> 
> It didn't give any example, but following the example of 'invariant', it should be:
> 
> const ReturnType memberFunc(param) {}
> 
> I think this is really confusing: is 'const' trying to specify the 'ReturnType' or the memberFunc?

As often, this is because C's syntax for variable or prototype declaration suck..

If D used Limbo and Scala syntax for this <function name>(<parameters>):<return value>
then there would be no ambiguity:
const memberFunc(param): ReturnType {}
memberFunc(param): const ReturnType {}
const memberFunc(param): const ReturnType {}

Walter has chosen an inferior syntax in the name of programmers familiarity, this is unlikely to change..

renoX

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:40:32 -0500, renoX wrote:

> im Wrote:
[snip]
> 
> If D used Limbo and Scala syntax for this <function
> name>(<parameters>):<return value> then there would be no ambiguity:
> const memberFunc(param): ReturnType {} memberFunc(param): const
> ReturnType {} const memberFunc(param): const ReturnType {}
> 
> Walter has chosen an inferior syntax in the name of programmers familiarity, this is unlikely to change..
> 
> renoX

That syntax would be nicer indeed.
We may be able to omit the void return type this way:

"print()" instead of "void print()"

I personally prefer to move the return type into the function header, but that's another pile of issues.