http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-11-08 18:40:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Once we have ref-qualifiers, it should be OK to add the non-const overload > > with > > an lvalue ref-qualifier, though. > > I think you need to add a differently named function, because a function with > ref-qualifier cannot coexist with other functions of the same name and the > same > parameter-type-list that do not have a ref-qualifier. Can't you qualify the constexpr version with const&? 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. I guess that's one more reason not to provide the extension... (It is funny that for a constexpr bitset a, (~a)[0] is not constexpr :-/ )
