Structured binding on constWhat is the difference between const int*, const int * const, and int const *?String literal in templates - different behavior of compilersstructured binding with [[maybe_unused]]Capturing array of vectors in lambda makes elements constExplicit destructor call with decltypeWhy “int & const” compiles fine with MSVC?Discards qualifiers unknown cause (std::bind() / lambda)Visual accept std::string from std::byte iteratorC++17 - Binding rvalue reference to non-const lvalue refShall structured binding to a copy of a const c-array be const?

Customize circled numbers

Drawing ramified coverings with tikz

Is XSS in canonical link possible?

Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?

How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux?

Can someone explain how this makes sense electrically?

Proving a function is onto where f(x)=|x|.

Reply 'no position' while the job posting is still there

Is a model fitted to data or is data fitted to a model?

Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?

How do I repair my stair bannister?

Why does the integral domain "being trapped between a finite field extension" implies that it is a field?

Does having a TSA Pre-Check member in your flight reservation increase the chances that everyone gets Pre-Check?

Greatest common substring

Drawing a topological "handle" with Tikz

What does the Rambam mean when he says that the planets have souls?

Do the concepts of IP address and network interface not belong to the same layer?

How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?

How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?

What is the gram­mat­i­cal term for “‑ed” words like these?

Divine apple island

What (else) happened July 1st 1858 in London?

Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?

How do ground effect vehicles perform turns?



Structured binding on const


What is the difference between const int*, const int * const, and int const *?String literal in templates - different behavior of compilersstructured binding with [[maybe_unused]]Capturing array of vectors in lambda makes elements constExplicit destructor call with decltypeWhy “int & const” compiles fine with MSVC?Discards qualifiers unknown cause (std::bind() / lambda)Visual accept std::string from std::byte iteratorC++17 - Binding rvalue reference to non-const lvalue refShall structured binding to a copy of a const c-array be const?













6















Is the following code supposed to compile?



void foo() 
const std::pair<int, int> x = 1, 2;

auto [a, b] = x;

static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);




  • MSVC says "yes!".


  • GCC says "oh no, man!".


  • Clang says "no way!".


So, is this an MSVC bug?



The standard is not straightforward here (I had a quick look), but considering the rules for auto, I suppose, a and b should be copied discarding cv-qualifier.










share|improve this question


























    6















    Is the following code supposed to compile?



    void foo() 
    const std::pair<int, int> x = 1, 2;

    auto [a, b] = x;

    static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
    static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);




    • MSVC says "yes!".


    • GCC says "oh no, man!".


    • Clang says "no way!".


    So, is this an MSVC bug?



    The standard is not straightforward here (I had a quick look), but considering the rules for auto, I suppose, a and b should be copied discarding cv-qualifier.










    share|improve this question
























      6












      6








      6








      Is the following code supposed to compile?



      void foo() 
      const std::pair<int, int> x = 1, 2;

      auto [a, b] = x;

      static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
      static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);




      • MSVC says "yes!".


      • GCC says "oh no, man!".


      • Clang says "no way!".


      So, is this an MSVC bug?



      The standard is not straightforward here (I had a quick look), but considering the rules for auto, I suppose, a and b should be copied discarding cv-qualifier.










      share|improve this question














      Is the following code supposed to compile?



      void foo() 
      const std::pair<int, int> x = 1, 2;

      auto [a, b] = x;

      static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
      static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);




      • MSVC says "yes!".


      • GCC says "oh no, man!".


      • Clang says "no way!".


      So, is this an MSVC bug?



      The standard is not straightforward here (I had a quick look), but considering the rules for auto, I suppose, a and b should be copied discarding cv-qualifier.







      c++ c++17 structured-bindings






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 6 hours ago









      Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

      5,18821239




      5,18821239






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7















          Is the following code supposed to compile?




          It is not. This is an MSVC bug.



          A structured binding declaration introduces a new name (for specification only), e, that is declared like:



          auto e = x;


          The type of e is called E, and since the initializer is tuple-like, the types of the bindings are given by tuple_element_t<i, E>. In this case E is pair<int, int>, so the two types are just int. The rule for decltype of a structured binding is to give the referenced type, so decltype(a) and decltype(b) are both int.



          The important part here is that a and b (the structured bindings) come from the invented variable (e), and not its initializer (x). e is not const because you just declared it auto. What we're doing is copying x, and then taking bindings into this (non-const) copy.






          share|improve this answer






























            3














            The static assertions should fail (so this would be an MSVC bug I guess). Why? Because it's basically the same as the case of:



            void foo() 
            const int x_1 = 1;
            const int x_2 = 2;

            auto a = x_1;
            auto b = x_2;

            static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
            static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);



            which does indeed fail on MSVC as well.



            In C++ expression types decay on assignment: the auto sees an int, not a const int. Structured binding simply lets you do more than a single auto binding at a time.






            share|improve this answer
























              Your Answer






              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
              StackExchange.snippets.init();
              );
              );
              , "code-snippets");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "1"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55329651%2fstructured-binding-on-const%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              7















              Is the following code supposed to compile?




              It is not. This is an MSVC bug.



              A structured binding declaration introduces a new name (for specification only), e, that is declared like:



              auto e = x;


              The type of e is called E, and since the initializer is tuple-like, the types of the bindings are given by tuple_element_t<i, E>. In this case E is pair<int, int>, so the two types are just int. The rule for decltype of a structured binding is to give the referenced type, so decltype(a) and decltype(b) are both int.



              The important part here is that a and b (the structured bindings) come from the invented variable (e), and not its initializer (x). e is not const because you just declared it auto. What we're doing is copying x, and then taking bindings into this (non-const) copy.






              share|improve this answer



























                7















                Is the following code supposed to compile?




                It is not. This is an MSVC bug.



                A structured binding declaration introduces a new name (for specification only), e, that is declared like:



                auto e = x;


                The type of e is called E, and since the initializer is tuple-like, the types of the bindings are given by tuple_element_t<i, E>. In this case E is pair<int, int>, so the two types are just int. The rule for decltype of a structured binding is to give the referenced type, so decltype(a) and decltype(b) are both int.



                The important part here is that a and b (the structured bindings) come from the invented variable (e), and not its initializer (x). e is not const because you just declared it auto. What we're doing is copying x, and then taking bindings into this (non-const) copy.






                share|improve this answer

























                  7












                  7








                  7








                  Is the following code supposed to compile?




                  It is not. This is an MSVC bug.



                  A structured binding declaration introduces a new name (for specification only), e, that is declared like:



                  auto e = x;


                  The type of e is called E, and since the initializer is tuple-like, the types of the bindings are given by tuple_element_t<i, E>. In this case E is pair<int, int>, so the two types are just int. The rule for decltype of a structured binding is to give the referenced type, so decltype(a) and decltype(b) are both int.



                  The important part here is that a and b (the structured bindings) come from the invented variable (e), and not its initializer (x). e is not const because you just declared it auto. What we're doing is copying x, and then taking bindings into this (non-const) copy.






                  share|improve this answer














                  Is the following code supposed to compile?




                  It is not. This is an MSVC bug.



                  A structured binding declaration introduces a new name (for specification only), e, that is declared like:



                  auto e = x;


                  The type of e is called E, and since the initializer is tuple-like, the types of the bindings are given by tuple_element_t<i, E>. In this case E is pair<int, int>, so the two types are just int. The rule for decltype of a structured binding is to give the referenced type, so decltype(a) and decltype(b) are both int.



                  The important part here is that a and b (the structured bindings) come from the invented variable (e), and not its initializer (x). e is not const because you just declared it auto. What we're doing is copying x, and then taking bindings into this (non-const) copy.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  BarryBarry

                  185k21325600




                  185k21325600























                      3














                      The static assertions should fail (so this would be an MSVC bug I guess). Why? Because it's basically the same as the case of:



                      void foo() 
                      const int x_1 = 1;
                      const int x_2 = 2;

                      auto a = x_1;
                      auto b = x_2;

                      static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
                      static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);



                      which does indeed fail on MSVC as well.



                      In C++ expression types decay on assignment: the auto sees an int, not a const int. Structured binding simply lets you do more than a single auto binding at a time.






                      share|improve this answer





























                        3














                        The static assertions should fail (so this would be an MSVC bug I guess). Why? Because it's basically the same as the case of:



                        void foo() 
                        const int x_1 = 1;
                        const int x_2 = 2;

                        auto a = x_1;
                        auto b = x_2;

                        static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
                        static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);



                        which does indeed fail on MSVC as well.



                        In C++ expression types decay on assignment: the auto sees an int, not a const int. Structured binding simply lets you do more than a single auto binding at a time.






                        share|improve this answer



























                          3












                          3








                          3







                          The static assertions should fail (so this would be an MSVC bug I guess). Why? Because it's basically the same as the case of:



                          void foo() 
                          const int x_1 = 1;
                          const int x_2 = 2;

                          auto a = x_1;
                          auto b = x_2;

                          static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
                          static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);



                          which does indeed fail on MSVC as well.



                          In C++ expression types decay on assignment: the auto sees an int, not a const int. Structured binding simply lets you do more than a single auto binding at a time.






                          share|improve this answer















                          The static assertions should fail (so this would be an MSVC bug I guess). Why? Because it's basically the same as the case of:



                          void foo() 
                          const int x_1 = 1;
                          const int x_2 = 2;

                          auto a = x_1;
                          auto b = x_2;

                          static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(a)>);
                          static_assert(std::is_const_v<decltype(b)>);



                          which does indeed fail on MSVC as well.



                          In C++ expression types decay on assignment: the auto sees an int, not a const int. Structured binding simply lets you do more than a single auto binding at a time.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited 6 hours ago

























                          answered 6 hours ago









                          einpoklumeinpoklum

                          36.1k28132260




                          36.1k28132260



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55329651%2fstructured-binding-on-const%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                              Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                              Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar