> You can't meaningfully semantically talk about code that doesn't compile. You can point out that it failed to compile, and that can be a benefit when compili

> You can't meaningfully semantically talk about code that doesn't compile. You can point out that it failed to compile, and that can be a benefit when compiling would've been detrimental. Just like you yourself literally just did when you said "The code doesn't compile [...]". > it did in fact stop the author from calling a non-constexpr function from a constexpr function. The constexpr in front of bar() is not what prevented compilation. You don't believe me? Just take it out and see. The code would've failed to compile the exact same way without constexpr in front of bar(). Try it before disagreeing with me. You're saying putting constexpr in front of bar() has a benefit. I'm saying: tell me what it was. Making that constexpr be always in front of bar() implicitly would've resulted in exactly the same outcome in every situation where the code compiles and also where it fails to compile (like above). Nothing would've been any different. I don't get why this is so difficult but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Everything I can possibly imagine explaining is in my comments up to this point so just re-read them, I have no other way I can phrase these. Everyone else has understood what I'm saying and I'm at a loss how else to explain it differently. I promise you it's not wrong, we're just failing to communicate.