This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++11 status.

### 1019. Make `integral_constant` objects useable in integral-constant-expressions

Section: 20.15.4 [meta.help] Status: C++11 Submitter: Alisdair Meredith Opened: 2009-03-11 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [meta.help].

View all issues with C++11 status.

Discussion:

Addresses UK 205 [CD1]

`integral_constant` objects should be usable in integral-constant-expressions. The addition to the language of literal types and the enhanced rules for constant expressions make this possible.

[ Batavia (2009-05): ]

> We agree that the `static` data member ought be declared `constexpr`, but do not see a need for the proposed `operator value_type()`. (A use case would be helpful.) Move to Open.

[ 2009-05-23 Alisdair adds: ]

> The motivating case in my mind is that we can then use `true_type` and `false_type` as integral Boolean expressions, for example inside a `static_assert` declaration. In that sense it is purely a matter of style.

> Note that Boost has applied the non-explicit conversion operator for many years as it has valuable properties for extension into other metaprogramming libraries, such as MPL. If additional rationale is desired I will poll the Boost lists for why this extension was originally applied. I would argue that explicit conversion is more appropriate for 0x though.

[ 2009-07-04 Howard adds: ]

> Here's a use case which demonstrates the syntactic niceness which Alisdair describes:

> >     #define requires(...) class = typename std::enable_if<(__VA_ARGS__)>::type

> >     template <class T, class U,
> >         requires(!is_lvalue_reference<T>() ||
> >                   is_lvalue_reference<T>() && is_lvalue_reference<U>()),
> >         requires(is_same<typename base_type<T>::type,
> >                          typename base_type<U>::type>)>
> >     inline
> >     T&&
> >     forward(U&& t)
> >     {
> >         return static_cast<T&&>(t);
> >     }

[ 2009-07 post-Frankfurt: ]

> Move to Tentatively Ready.

[ 2009 Santa Cruz: ]

> Moved to Ready for this meeting.

Proposed resolution:

Add to the `integral_constant` struct definition in 20.15.4 [meta.help]:

>     template <class T, T v>
>     struct integral_constant {
>       static constexpr T value = v;
>       typedef T value_type;
>       typedef integral_constant<T,v> type;
>       constexpr operator value_type() { return value; }
>     };