C++ : If my class is a literal class then is it redundant to declare an object of my class as conste

Channel:
Subscribers:
76,400
Published on ● Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOIrkinv1c



Duration: 1:47
0 views
0


C++ : If my class is a literal class then is it redundant to declare an object of my class as constexpr?
To Access My Live Chat Page,
On Google, Search for "hows tech developer connect"

I have a hidden feature that I promised to tell you about.
This is a YouTube's feature which works on Desktop.
First, Make sure this video is playing.
Next, enter the letters 'awesome' on your keyboard.
Your YouTube progress indicator will turn into a shimmering rainbow.

Here's a brief description of who I am,
Hey, I am Delphi.
I am at your disposal to help you with any questions you have.
C++ : If my class is a literal class then is it redundant to declare an object of my class as constexpr?
I welcome your comments and chats if you have more detailed queries.
Your input is appreciated, so please leave a comment below with your answer or insights to the answer.
Your answer will be appreciated and acknowledged with a 'heart' from me.
is class class of a : to my object If my class is C++ an redundant constexpr? then literal it declare as