Peter Dimov
Louis Dionne wrote:
I assume that you mean for 'f' to be constexpr?
No, it does not change a thing. It was on purpose that I did _not_ make it constexpr, in order not to mix concerns. What we're interested in is the constexpr-ness of `s` within the body of `f`, whether `f` is constexpr or not does not change anything.
I know that it doesn't, but we're demonstrating that 's' isn't constexpr even when 'f' is, which is a stronger claim than that 's' isn't constexpr when 'f' isn't.
Sure, I agree with your point. However, just to clarify my view of things, I see f's constexpr-ness as being orthogonal (i.e. unrelated) to the constexpr-ness of its argument. Hence, I do not really perceive it as a stronger claim, just a different one that might make things trickier for someone not understanding this orthogonality. But I guess this boils down to pedagogy, and I think we have no real technical disagreement here. Regards, Louis