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?

Generating adjacency matrices from isomorphic graphs

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

Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?

Indicating multiple different modes of speech (fantasy language or telepathy)

Why has "pence" been used in this sentence, not "pences"?

Folder comparison

Should I install hardwood flooring or cabinets first?

Divine apple island

What is this type of notehead called?

Can I rely on this github repository files?

Structured binding on const

Flux received by a negative charge

How do ground effect vehicles perform turns?

How do I repair my stair bannister?

How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character

Can a significant change in incentives void an employment contract?

Why is Arduino resetting while driving motors?

Greatest common substring

When quoting, must I also copy hyphens used to divide words that continue on the next line?

Is it possible to have a strip of cold climate in the middle of a planet?

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

Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?

How do I extrude a face to a single vertex

Some numbers are more equivalent than others



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?













7















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


























    7















    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
























      7












      7








      7








      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

      5,19321239




      5,19321239






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8















          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









              8















              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



























                8















                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

























                  8












                  8








                  8








                  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

                              acmart: Multiple authors: all with same affiliation, one author an additional affiliationHow to Write Names of Multiple Authors with Shared Affiliation in ACM 2017 Template?Multiple authors with different primary affiliation, but same additional affiliationSame affiliation for all authors without extra packagesIOS-Book-Article.cls: one author with multiple affiliationacmart: Shared Author AffiliationMultiple authors with different primary affiliation, but same additional affiliationAuthor affiliation with only 1 authorAdding Multiple Authors with Different Affiliation in LaTeX ArticleLaTeX: Multiple authors stays on same lineHow to Label Multiple Authors with Same DescriptionHow to make two authors use the same affiliationTwo authors with same affiliation on finished front page

                              How to write “ä” and other umlauts and accented letters in bibliography?Accents in BibTeXSorting references with special characters alphabeticallyUse ae ligature in bibliographyEastern European nameInverted circumflex in BibTexBibTex, non-ascii initials and nameptr fproblems with accent in LatexHow to add a Ø to my bibliography from Jabref?References without accentsTroubles when trying to cite St“omer-Verlet in ”title" field of a bib entryComprehensive list of accented charactersHow to type the letter “i” with two dots (diaeresis) in math mode?Problem with glossary text and accented lettersSpecial character in bibliographyAccented letters, Unicode and LaTeX accentsHow to stop natbib from modifying bibliography styleCitation of a paper with non-standard characters by BibtexWrite accented characters to file using writeHow to group the bibliography alphabetically, if some surnames start with “accented” characters?How can I automatically capitalize significant words in my bibliography?

                              How to force a table into page width?How to make table spanning textwidthMaking table width fit into text widthTable with tabular, column type p grabbing available spaceMaking widths of tables equal to width of textblocklatex tabular width the same as the textwidthMake tabular span textwidth exactlySet width of table to be the whole line or a given portion of itIs the tabu package obsolete?What is the difference between tabular, tabular* and tabularx environments?How can i set the width of a table?Making table width fit into text widthTabular and grid typesettingMake table use page widthTable exceeds page widthtable width automatically to page widthHow to shrink table to page widthForce table column to be zero widthTable width exceeds the page widthTable extending beyond the page widthforce longtable to text width