http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> 2011-11-09 10:36:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Can't you qualify the constexpr version with const&? Yes. > That wouldn't exactly > match the signature in the standard, which is bad if someone tries to store > &complex::real in a pointer-to-member variable. But otherwise it should act > about the same as simply const. >From the p.o.v of the standard library you don't break anything, because user code cannot rely on the exact signatures of non-virtual member functions of library components, 17.6.5.5 [member.functions] gives a lot of freedom to implementations in this regard. > (It is funny that for a constexpr bitset a, (~a)[0] is not constexpr :-/ ) I agree.
