Vjylku

Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?

Visiting the UK as unmarried couple

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

Can someone explain how this makes sense electrically?

What is this type of notehead called?

Can I rely on this github repository files?

Simulating a probability of 1 of 2^N with less than N random bits

Flux received by a negative charge

Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?

Fly on a jet pack vs fly with a jet pack?

Freedom of speech and where it applies

Journal losing indexing services

Is there a word to describe the feeling of being transfixed out of horror?

Does the Mind Blank spell prevent the target from being frightened?

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

A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?

Transformation of random variables and joint distributions

How do I repair my stair bannister?

Is it improper etiquette to ask your opponent what his/her rating is before the game?

Why is Arduino resetting while driving motors?

Proof of Lemma: Every nonzero integer can be written as a product of primes

Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?

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

Can a significant change in incentives void an employment contract?

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.

c++ c++17 structured-bindings

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

5,19321239

add a comment | 

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.

c++ c++17 structured-bindings

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

5,19321239

add a comment | 

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

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

5,19321239

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)>);

}

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

5,19321239

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

5,19321239

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

5,19321239

asked 6 hours ago

Biagio FestaBiagio Festa

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

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

185k21325600

add a comment | 

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

edited 6 hours ago

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260

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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

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

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

185k21325600

add a comment | 

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

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

185k21325600

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

185k21325600

auto e = x;

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

185k21325600

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

185k21325600

answered 6 hours ago

BarryBarry

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

edited 6 hours ago

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260

add a comment | 

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

edited 6 hours ago

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260

add a comment | 

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

edited 6 hours ago

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260

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)>);

}

share|improve this answer

edited 6 hours ago

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260

answered 6 hours ago

einpoklumeinpoklum

36.1k28132260