On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 10:29:25 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 9/23/14 6:26 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
<[email protected]>" wrote:
Ok, I take it back ;-) Steven is right. It is however the case
that this
function's return value would still be unique.
Yes, it could be unique. I haven't read this thread really, so
I don't know what has been proposed, but looking at the
snippet, wouldn't you have to tag the return value? You tagged
the parameter with unique.
Bearophile did, not me. But yes, you would have to, absent an
extension to return type inference. As I already replied to him,
uniqueness was really just used in an example because it made it
cleaner; it's mostly unrelated to my proposal.
