In short(the things I agree one with you gentlemen):
1.Mr. Sebastian was completely right and had a great summary.
2.I am really really sorry for the const lvalue reference part, it's wrong,
and I tried to use it because I thought that if arrays decay into pointers
then this should decay into const references, but not only did I term it
wrong, I processed that thought wrong.
3.sorry for my verbose responses, and I completely agree that I made the
mistake of being verbose.


On Sat, 4 Apr 2026, 12:45 pm Muneem, <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> To reply to Adrian telling me why making the value type const lvalue
> reference is wrong?
> I did a mistake:
> I was really sorry for my inconsistent usage of the term const reference
> type, what I meant was that it had the semantics of const reference type
> (but be a different type) and could decay into one, just like built in
> arrays can. This was a stupid mistake that I made because I thought that
> it's a small part of the puzzle that might useful to put just to make it
> look complete. What I didn't realize was that this will bite me back if not
> thought of consciously. I know that you chose capacity for that reason.
>
>
> ***New addition***
> The type of the expression of the set and the value selected would be new.
> I won't make any assumptions to try to make the puzzle feel complete, and I
> am super sorry for doing so.
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2026, 12:35 pm Andre Kostur, <andre_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 6:53 AM Muneem <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sorry for the late reply( I was showering and using hair oil)
>> > Sorry for my confusing reply, really sorry.
>> > The short answer is:
>> > NO
>> > The long answer is:
>> > The rules for templates would apply here, and concepts can be used to
>> further constraint the requirements and make any resulting errors readable,
>> so basically, it would work only if vector and list have the member
>> capacity.
>>
>> That's why I chose capacity(), it doesn't exist in one of the types.
>> So you're suggesting that the compile would have to try the syntax
>> against every type in the set?
>>
>> This answer seems inconsistent with one of your previous answers
>> regarding the type of 'x': "The answer is the *********const reference
>> type********* of the object at the index read' (ignoring the const
>> part). If the type of x is std::vector<int>, then there should be no
>> reason to fail to compile a call to capacity().
>>
>