Constraint | Live demo | Video | Learning library

Edit: see blackgreen's answer, which I also found later on my own while scanning through the same documentation they linked. I was going to edit this answer to update based on that, but now I don't have to. :-)

There is probably a better way—this one seems a bit clumsy—but I was able to work around this with reflect:

Is there a way to work around this issue without imposing additional constraints on map key and value types?

It doesn't appear doable in safe Rust, at least not with reasonable algorithmic complexity. (See Aiden4's answer for a solution that does it by re-building the whole map.)

But if you're allowed to use unsafe, and if you're determined enough that you want to delve into it, this code could do it:

This seems to a be a known issue with Rails 7 and Devise now. To fix it in the meantime simply add the following line to your devise.rb.

config.navigational_formats = ['*/*', :html, :turbo_stream]

Source: https://github.com/heartcombo/devise/issues/5439

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that last part:

This is Clang bug #49513; the situation and analysis is similar to this answer.

sizeof(T)>0 is an atomic constraint, so [temp.constr.atomic]/3 applies:

To determine if an atomic constraint is satisfied, the parameter mapping and template arguments are first substituted into its expression. If substitution results in an invalid type or expression, the constraint is not satisfied. [...]

sizeof(void)>0 is an invalid expression, so that constraint is not satisfied, and constraint evaluation proceeds to sizeof(U)>0.

As in the linked question, an alternative workaround is to use "requires requires requires"; demo:

GCC and Clang report that S is trivially copyable in C++11 through C++23 standard modes. MSVC reports that S is not trivially copyable in C++14 through C++20 standard modes.

N3337 (~ C++11) and N4140 (~ C++14) say:

A trivially copyable class is a class that:

• has no non-trivial copy constructors,
• has no non-trivial move constructors,
• has no non-trivial copy assignment operators,
• has no non-trivial move assignment operators, and
• has a trivial destructor.

By this definition, S is trivially copyable.

N4659 (~ C++17) says:

A trivially copyable class is a class:

• where each copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, and move assignment operator is either deleted or trivial,
• that has at least one non-deleted copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator, and
• that has a trivial, non-deleted destructor

By this definition, S is not trivially copyable.

N4860 (~ C++20) says:

A trivially copyable class is a class:

• that has at least one eligible copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator,
• where each eligible copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, and move assignment operator is trivial, and
• that has a trivial, non-deleted destructor.

By this definition, S is not trivially copyable.

Thus, as published, S was trivally copyable in C++11 and C++14, but not in C++17 and C++20.

The change was adopted from DR 1734 in February 2016. Implementors generally treat DRs as though they apply to all prior language standards by convention. Thus, by the published standard for C++11 and C++14, S was trivially copyable, and by convention, newer compiler versions might choose to treat S as not trivially copyable in C++11 and C++14 modes. Thus, all compilers could be said to be correct for C++11 and C++14.

For C++17 and beyond, S is unambiguously not trivially copyable so GCC and Clang are incorrect. This is GCC bug #96288 and LLVM bug #39050

A constraint on the deduced auto type doesn't mean it needs to be a specific type, it means it needs to be one of a set of types that satisfy the constraint. Note that a constraint and a type are not the same thing, and they're not interchangeable.

e.g. a concept like std::integral constrains the deduced type to be an integral type, such as int or long, but not float, or std::string.

If I really need a std::integral datatype, couldn't I just omit the auto completely?

In principle, I suppose you could, but this would at the minimum lead to parsing difficulties. e.g. in a declaration like

Recent SG9 discussion on LWG3564 concluded that the intended design is that x and as_const(x) should be required to be substitutable with equal results in equality-preserving expressions for which both are valid. In other words, they should be "equal" in the [concepts.equality] "same platonic value" sense. Thus, for instance, it is not valid for x and as_const(x) to have entirely different elements.

The exact wording and scope of the rule will have to await a paper, and we'll have to take care to avoid banning reasonable code. But certainly things like "x is a range of pairs but as_const(x) is a range of ints" are not within any reasonable definition of "reasonable".