c++c++11language-lawyerdeclvalreference-collapsing

Is there a reason declval returns add_rvalue_reference instead of add_lvalue_reference

changing a type into a reference to a type, allows one to access the members of the type without creating an instance of the type. This seems to be true for both lvalue references and rvalue references.

declval is implemented with add_rvalue_reference instead of add_lvalue_reference,

Edit: I suppose I was slightly vague, these answers are all very good but touch on slightly different points. There are two different answers to use proposed, Howard emphasized that you can choose which reference your type has, making add_rvalue_reference more flexible. The other answers emphasize that the default behavior automatically chooses references which reflect the input type more naturally. I don't know what to pick! If somebody could add two simple examples, motivating the need for each property respectively, then I'll be satisfied.

Solution

  • With add_rvalue_reference:

    With add_lvalue_reference:

    that is, you would never get a Foo&&.

    Also, the fact that declval<Foo>() is of type Foo&& is fine (you can write Foo&& rr = Foo(); but not Foo& lr = Foo();). And that declval<Foo&&>() would be of type Foo& just feels “wrong”!

    Edit: Since you asked for an example:

    #include <utility>
using namespace std;

struct A {};
struct B {};
struct C {};

class Foo {
public:
    Foo(int) { } // (not default-constructible)

    A onLvalue()   &  { return A{}; }
    B onRvalue()   && { return B{}; }
    C onWhatever()    { return C{}; }
};

decltype( declval<Foo& >().onLvalue()   ) a;
decltype( declval<Foo&&>().onRvalue()   ) b;
decltype( declval<Foo  >().onWhatever() ) c;

    If declval used add_lvalue_reference you couldn't use onRvalue() with it (second decltype).