http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-08 00:05:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Isn't the const redundant here? Maybe, the code predates constexpr. > Actually, I only see constexpr for the specializations in the standard, not > for >the general case, am I looking at the wrong place? The constexpr are there, in the primary too, around line # 150. > Why can't you still have these overloads? > constexpr _Tp real(); // const > _Tp&real(); > > Note that I am not taking position on whether it should be added, I am just > confused by the technical reasons. Sure you can, in principle. The mathematical/physical concept of beauty from symmetry prevents me for posting such patch, now and ever ;)
