Thanks for the response.

Right, it seems there is no harm in forwarding. But my question is in
the other direction: What possible harm could there be in real
scenarios, if there were no special treatment for the const rvalue?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 19:22, Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This just forwards. I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong or incorrect with a const rvalue, other than being mostly useless. Conceptually an expiring const object absolutely makes sense, although normally you can't make much more use of it than with a const lvalue.
>
> No harm in forwarding it.
>
> Cheers,
> Lénárd
>
> On 7 December 2022 10:49:34 GMT, Yongwei Wu via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I am wondering how useful is const rvalue, and I've found some good
>> discussion here:
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4938875/do-rvalue-references-to-const-have-any-use
>>
>> A question remains unanswered: Why do we support std::get on a const
>> rvalue of tuple (or variant)? Apart from the syntactic symmetry, what
>> practical purpose does it serve? I.e. if one removes the following
>> overload (and keeps the remaining three):
>>
>> template< class T, class... Types >
>> constexpr const T&& get( const tuple<Types...>&& t ) noexcept;
>>
>> Can anything bad happen? And under which situations?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Yongwei
>>
>> --
>> Yongwei Wu
>> URL: http://wyw.dcweb.cn/
>
> --
> Std-Discussion mailing list
> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion

-- 
Yongwei Wu
URL: http://wyw.dcweb.cn/