On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 06:12:00 spir wrote: > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:17:24 -0800 > > Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Various syntaxes have been proposed in the past. Syntax isn't really the > > issue. It's pretty easy to come up with one. I think that out of the > > ones I've seen, > > > > the I liked the best was the one proposed by Michel Fortin: > > >I proposed the following a while ago. First allow the class reference > > > > > > to (optionally) be made explicit: > > > C a; // mutable reference to mutable class > > > C ref b; // mutable reference to mutable class > > > > > > And now you can apply tail-const to it: > > > const(C)ref c; // mutable reference to const class > > > const(C ref) d; // const reference to const class > > > const(C) e; // const reference to const class > > This is the nicest proposal, imo as well. > Is "ref" used here only because "C * b" would mean double indirection?
* has nothing to do with references. * is for pointers. We're dealing with references here. C* would either be a pointer to a reference or a pointer to an object (I'm not sure which, technically-speaking, since it's a bit of a pain to deal with pointers and classes). Regardless, C* b already means something totally different. - Jonathan M Davis
