C++ Constructors have no return type. Just exactly why?

Question

I\'ve Googled this and read many posts, but there are so many different answers that all make logical sense that I was wondering if an expert on the topic could demystify th

Answer 1

The constructor does not specify a return type because it would be redundant: there is no type other than the one being constructed that a constructor could potentially "return". I put "return" in quotes because technically constructors do not return anything: when they are invoked in a static context, they initialize an instance in place; when they are invoked in a dynamic context, it is the operator new that returns something, not a constructor.

Answer 2

Assuming constructors could return something, then this has problematic implications for the following function call:

class Object{ 
    public: 
        bool Object(){ ... };   
        ...
}      

SomeFun(Object obj){ ... } 

SomeFun(Object());   
// Ha! SomeFun jokes on an error about a non-Object argument(of type bool), returned  
// by the anonymous temporary Object()

Preventing constructor functions from returning, facilitates the use of anonymous temporaries, along with many more C++ features. Without such a rule, innocuous statements can become ambiguous:

Object obj(Object()); 
// How does the variable obj decide which constructor to call,  
// based on its argument type?  
// 
// Does it call: bool Object::Object(Object&) or  
//                    Object::Object(bool)(if it exists)? 

The ability for constructors to return a value, complicates the creation of objects - having a single unambiguous type, the class name, in the absence of arbitrary return values, avoids such problems.

Can readers suggest further examples where C++ idioms are hindered by the absence of such a rule?