Difference between add_lvalue_reference_t<T> and T&

Question

Suppose you have a template argument T.

What are the differences between

• add_cv_t<T> and const volatile T
• add_const_t<T> and const T
• add_volatile_t<T> and volatile T
• add_lvalue_reference_t<T> and T&
• add_rvalue_reference_t<T> and T&&
• add_pointer_t<T> and T*?

Why should I use add_rvalue_reference_t<T> instead of T&& for example. Are there any rules when to choose which?

Answer 1

• add_cv_t<T> and const volatile T
• add_const_t<T> and const T
• add_volatile_t<T> and volatile T

No difference; the definition of add_const<T>::type is just T const, for example.

• add_lvalue_reference_t<T> and T&
• add_rvalue_reference_t<T> and T&&

T& and T&& are ill-formed when T is cv void, but these templates are well-formed, just giving the original type back.

• add_pointer_t<T> and T*?

add_pointer_t<T> is equivalent to std::remove_reference<T>::type*. That is, if T is a reference type, it gives a pointer to the referenced type. On the other hand, T* will be ill-formed since you cannot have a pointer to a reference.

Which should you use?

• In general, the alias templates can be used to prevent deduction of T. Of course, that means that if you want deduction, you should avoid them.
• The alias templates can be used as template template arguments to a template that takes a type transformation as a parameter.
• The alias templates that differ in behaviour from alternatives like T* are useful in generic code since they "do the right thing". For example, if T is deduced from an argument of type T&&, then T* does the wrong thing when the argument is an lvalue, since it tries to declare a pointer to an lvalue reference. But std::add_pointer_t<T> will give a pointer to the actual type of the argument.