Structured binding on const
Is the following code supposed to compile?
#include <type_traits>
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
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
add a comment |
Is the following code supposed to compile?
#include <type_traits>
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
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
add a comment |
Is the following code supposed to compile?
#include <type_traits>
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
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
Is the following code supposed to compile?
#include <type_traits>
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
c++ c++17 structured-bindings
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
edited Mar 25 at 12:19
einpoklum
36.7k28132262
36.7k28132262
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
asked Mar 24 at 23:44
Biagio FestaBiagio Festa
5,40621240
5,40621240
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
add a comment |
The static assertions in your code should fail. Why? Because your code is basically the same as the case of:
#include <type_traits>
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.
... and so the fact that MSVC doesn't fail on the assertions in your code seems to be a bug.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
add a comment |
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.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
add a comment |
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.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
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.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
BarryBarry
186k21327602
186k21327602
add a comment |
add a comment |
The static assertions in your code should fail. Why? Because your code is basically the same as the case of:
#include <type_traits>
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.
... and so the fact that MSVC doesn't fail on the assertions in your code seems to be a bug.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
add a comment |
The static assertions in your code should fail. Why? Because your code is basically the same as the case of:
#include <type_traits>
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.
... and so the fact that MSVC doesn't fail on the assertions in your code seems to be a bug.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
add a comment |
The static assertions in your code should fail. Why? Because your code is basically the same as the case of:
#include <type_traits>
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.
... and so the fact that MSVC doesn't fail on the assertions in your code seems to be a bug.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
The static assertions in your code should fail. Why? Because your code is basically the same as the case of:
#include <type_traits>
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.
... and so the fact that MSVC doesn't fail on the assertions in your code seems to be a bug.
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
edited Mar 31 at 17:33
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
answered Mar 24 at 23:53
einpoklumeinpoklum
36.7k28132262
36.7k28132262
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
