non-class rvalues always have cv-unqualified types

Question

§3.10 section 9 says \"non-class rvalues always have cv-unqualified types\". That made me wonder...

int foo()
{
    return 5;
}

const int bar()
{
    return         


        

Answer 1

The committee already seems to be aware that there's a problem in this part of the standard. CWG issue 690 talks about a somewhat similar problem with exactly the same part of the standard (in the "additional note" from September, 2009). I'd guess new language will be drafted for that part of the standard soon.

Edit: I've just submitted a post on comp.std.c++, noting the problem and suggesting new wording for the relevant piece of the standard. Unfortunately, being a moderated newsgroup, nearly everybody will probably have forgotten this question by the time it makes it through the approval queue there.