How to iterate over non-const variables in C++?

It does not work because in {a,b} you are making a copy of a and b. One possible solution would be to make the loop variable a pointer, taking the addresses of a and b:

#include <initializer_list>

struct Obj {
    int i;
};

Obj a, b;

int main() {
    for(auto obj : {&a, &b}) {
        obj->i = 123;   
    }
}

See it live

Note: it is generically better to use auto, as it could avoid silent implicit conversions

The reason why that doesn't work is that the underlying elements of the std::initializer_list are copied from a and b, and are of type const Obj, so you are essentially trying to bind a constant value to a mutable reference.

One could try to fix this by using:

for (auto obj : {a, b}) {
    obj.i = 123;
}

but then would soon notice that the actual values of i in the objects a and b didn't change. The reason is that when using auto here, the type of the loop variable obj will become Obj, so then you're just looping over copies of a and b.

The actual way this should be fixed is that you can use std::ref (defined in the <functional> header), to make the items in the initializer list be of type std::reference_wrapper<Obj>. That is implictly convertible to Obj&, so you can keep that as the type of the loop variable:

#include <functional>
#include <initializer_list>
#include <iostream>

struct Obj {
    int i;
};

Obj a, b;

int main()
{
    for (Obj& obj : {std::ref(a), std::ref(b)}) { 
        obj.i = 123;
    }
    std::cout << a.i << '\n';
    std::cout << b.i << '\n';
}

Output:

123
123

An alternative way to do the above would be to make the loop use const auto& and std::reference_wrapper<T>::get. We can use a constant reference here, because the reference_wrapper doesn't get altered, just the value it wraps does:

for (const auto& obj : {std::ref(a), std::ref(b)}) { 
    obj.get().i = 123;
}

but I think that, because using auto here forces the use of .get(), this is quite cumbersome and the former method is the preferable way to solve this.

---

It might seem to be more simple to do this by using raw pointers in the loop as @francesco did in his answer, but I have a habit of avoiding raw pointers as much as possible, and in this case I just believe that using references makes the code clearer and cleaner.