> On Apr 18, 2026, at 5:39 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I'll disengage from this thread because I feel that it's just becoming a massive waste of time, and/or OP is trolling the list, by not providing any factual data.
>
> Just one note:
>
>> On 18/04/2026 17:28, Simon Schröder via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> Make it a std::vector<const std::variant> instead
>
> This cannot exist; it violates the allocator requirements (and most of the container requirements). I'm working on a proposal (P4102) that brings us one step closer to vector<const T>, though. It should be in the next mailing.

I wasn’t aware of this problem. Well, std::tuple is compile-time known. So, maybe (similarly to how std::tuple is immutably in its size) we could make it a const std::vector<std::variant>. Correct me if I’m wrong again: In this case operator[] would return a const std::variant& (making the returned variant const was what I was trying to achieve).
>
> Thank you,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals