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@lists.isocpp.org> 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/