Re: Another potential hole in the tuple specs

Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
[...]
> A const assignment operator?  Sounds unorthodox but I'll try it out.
>
> My current workaround is to declare std::ignore mutable (i.e.
> non-const).  A const assignment operator (if it works) would be
> preferable; no visible workaround required.

Remember that even the absence (or presence) of the const
qualifier on things like std::ignore can be detected by
conformance test suites so dropping it is not a viable
option.

Martin