> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Another potential hole in the tuple specs > > Eric Lemings wrote: > > > [...] > > A const assignment operator? Sounds unorthodox but I'll try it out. > > > > My current workaround is to declare std::ignore mutable (i.e. > > non-const). A const assignment operator (if it works) would be > > preferable; no visible workaround required. > > Remember that even the absence (or presence) of the const > qualifier on things like std::ignore can be detected by > conformance test suites so dropping it is not a viable > option.
Assuming the draft standard is actually correct, that is. In this case, I don't think there is any real need for std::ignore to be a constant really. (Thinking about asking whether std::ignore really needs to be a constant on the committee reflector.) I tried making std::ignore const and adding const to the internal assignment operator. I also tried adding overloads for const and non-const assignment. Still got errors in all cases. The only other recourse I can think of is to use remove_const on the element types where appropriate. Brad.
