Answer by Lightness Races in Orbit for Why are references not "const" in C++?
Why are macros not const? Functions? Literals? The names of types?const things are only a subset of immutable things.Since reference types are just that — types — it may have made some sense to require...
View ArticleAnswer by Kaz for Why are references not "const" in C++?
This is a quirk/feature in C++. Although we don't think of references as types, they in fact "sit" in the type system. Although this seems awkward (given that when references are used, the reference...
View ArticleAnswer by Sotter.liu for Why are references not "const" in C++?
const X& x” means x aliases an X object, but you can’t change that X object via x.And see std::is_const.
View ArticleAnswer by songyuanyao for Why are references not "const" in C++?
why is "ri" not "const"?std::is_const checks whether the type is const-qualified or not.If T is a const-qualified type (that is, const, or const volatile), provides the member constant value equal...
View ArticleAnswer by Galik for Why are references not "const" in C++?
This may seem counter-intuitive but I think the way to understand this is to realize that, in certain respects, references are treated syntactically like pointers.This seems logical for a pointer:int...
View ArticleAnswer by chema989 for Why are references not "const" in C++?
You need to use std::remove_reference for get the value you're looking for.std::cout << std::is_const<std::remove_reference<decltype(ri)>::type>::value << std::endl;For more...
View ArticleWhy are references not "const" in C++?
We know that a "const variable" indicates that once assigned, you cannot change the variable, like this:int const i = 1;i = 2;The program above will fail to compile; gcc prompts with an...
View Article
