Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

@google-admin: This project has already LICENSE file with Apache License 2.0 included, which I will respect. I have already signed agreement with Github, which I believe is binding for all projects posted here. Please see: https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service. Here is a relevant quote from it:

6. Contributions Under Repository License

Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that agreement will supercede.

Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.

Is your CLA conflicting this agreement with Github or the Apache License 2.0 of this project that you are requesting to sign an additional Contributor License Agreements? In particular I wonder why I have to disclose my address and phone number to Google in order to make a contribution.

Very simply, if you want us to take your patch, you need to comply with the CLA requirements. We can revisit the inherent CLA of the apache license in a different bug, but we are not able to be flexible on this.

This fix it for me too.

@malcolmreynolds: Please fix the code. I will close this pull request once it is not needed. No credit is required.

@esc @roman3017 We have pushed a different fix which does not remove the const semantics - please let me know if this fixes the issue.

Assuming that I managed to clean the bazel caches correctly (bazel clean --expunge) then yes, it does work, i.e. I get no compile errors.

@malcolmreynolds: your fix 9d20983 works for me