This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of CD1 status.

### 297. const_mem_fun_t<>::argument_type should be const T*

Section: 22.10.10 [logical.operations] Status: CD1 Submitter: Martin Sebor Opened: 2001-01-06 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all issues with CD1 status.

Discussion:

The class templates `const_mem_fun_t` in 20.5.8, p8 and `const_mem_fun1_t` in 20.5.8, p9 derive from `unary_function<T*, S>`, and `binary_function<T*, A, S>`, respectively. Consequently, their `argument_type`, and `first_argument_type` members, respectively, are both defined to be `T*` (non-const). However, their function call member operator takes a `const T*` argument. It is my opinion that `argument_type` should be `const T*` instead, so that one can easily refer to it in generic code. The example below derived from existing code fails to compile due to the discrepancy:

`template <class T>`
`void foo (typename T::argument_type arg) // #1`
`{`
`typename T::result_type (T::*pf) (typename T::argument_type) const = // #2`
`&T::operator();`
`}`

`struct X { /* ... */ };`

`int main ()`
`{`
`const X x;`
`foo<std::const_mem_fun_t<void, X> >(&x); // #3`
`}`

#1 `foo()` takes a plain unqualified `X*` as an argument
#2 the type of the pointer is incompatible with the type of the member function
#3 the address of a constant being passed to a function taking a non-const `X*`

Proposed resolution:

Replace the top portion of the definition of the class template const_mem_fun_t in 20.5.8, p8

`template <class S, class T> class const_mem_fun_t`
`: public unary_function<T*, S> {`

with

`template <class S, class T> class const_mem_fun_t`
`: public unary_function<const T*, S> {`

Also replace the top portion of the definition of the class template const_mem_fun1_t in 20.5.8, p9

`template <class S, class T, class A> class const_mem_fun1_t`
`: public binary_function<T*, A, S> {`

with

`template <class S, class T, class A> class const_mem_fun1_t`
`: public binary_function<const T*, A, S> {`

Rationale:

This is simply a contradiction: the `argument_type` typedef, and the argument type itself, are not the same.