I am writing a sorting algorithm, that takes a comparison function, similar to std::sort:
template <class RandomIt, class Compare>
void sort(RandomIt first, RandomIt last, Compare comp);
It seems to me that the template parameter Compare perfectly matches the Compare named requirement. I am trying to understand how to specify that constraint using C++ 20 concepts, such as std::strict_weak_order and std::equivalence_relation, but I am slightly confused.
If I quote the article on cppreference,
The type T satisfies Compare if
The type T satisfies BinaryPredicate, and Given
comp, an object of type T
equiv(a, b), an expression equivalent to !comp(a, b) && !comp(b, a)
std::strict_weak_ordering could capture my constraints on comp in the description above, but what about equiv? std::equivalence_relation takes a relation as a first template parameter. What would it be in my sorting function?
In C++, named requirements are wider in capabilities than concepts and constraints.
For example, I can have a named requirement that some algorithms halts. On the other hand, there is no way to make a concept that requires an algorithm halts.
Concepts can check some things, but they cannot check everything. So the named requirement Compare says first that the thing must be a BinaryPredicate. BinaryPredicate can be described as a concept and provided as a constraint.
Confirming
if comp(a,b)==true then comp(b,a)==false
would require either a proof subsystem of C++ to be added and the formal proof to be passed in alongside comp, or checking every single value of the types you pass to comp.
There are languages where you can pass around formal proofs of properties, and those formal proofs are checked to validate function arguments. C++ is not one of them.
Rice's theorem states that you cannot take code and verify its non-trivial properties. To pull off something similar to what you want, code would have to be augmented with proofs of what you claim about it. This extra information could then be required by constraints. Using the Turing tar pit, you could even augment C++ with this capability, but it wouldn't look much like C++ afterwards (and that is coming from me, who likes to add named operators to C++ for fun).
TL;DR not all named requirements can be expressed as concepts. Concepts can check some things, but not everything. Documenting additional requirements beyond what concepts constrain parameters is a thing in C++.
Related
On cppreference on std::ranges::less, in notes we can see that:
Unlike std::less, std::ranges::less requires all six comparison operators <, <=, >, >=, == and != to be valid (via the totally_ordered_with constraint).
But... why? Why would we use std::ranges::less{} instead of std::less{}? What is the practical situation in which we want to less{} only if there are other comparison operators defined, not only the < one?
What is the practical situation in which we want to less{} only if there are other comparison operators defined, not only the < one?
Not everything about the Ranges library is based purely on what is "practical". Much of it is about making the language and library make logical sense.
Concepts as a language feature gives the standard library the opportunity to define meaningful combinations of object features. To say that a type has an operator< is useful from the purely practical perspective of telling you what operations are available to it. But it doesn't really say anything meaningful about the type.
If a type is totally ordered, then that logically means that you could use any of the comparison operators to compare two objects of that type. Under the idea of a total order, a < b and b > a are equivalent statements. So it makes sense that if code is restricted to types that provide a total order, that code should be permitted to use either statement.
ranges::less::operator() does not use any operator other than <. But this function is constrained to types modelling the totally_ordered concept. This constraint exists because that's what ranges::less is for: comparing types which are totally ordered. It could have a more narrow constraint, but that would be throwing away any meaning provided by total ordering.
It also prevents you from exposing arbitrary implementation details to users. For example, let's say that you've got a template that takes some type T and you want to use T in a ranges::less-based operation. If you constrain this template to just having an operator<, then you have effectively put your implementation into the constraint. You no longer have the freedom for the implementation to switch to ranges::greater internally. Whereas if you had put std::totally_ordered in your constraint, you would make it clear to the user what they need to do while giving yourself the freedom to use whatever functors you need.
And since operator<=> exists and makes it easy to implement the ordering operators in one function, there's no practical downside. Well, except for code that has to compile on both C++17 and C++20.
Essentially, you shouldn't be writing types that are "ordered" by just writing operator< to begin with.
As far as I can tell based on the proposal the idea is to just simplify the design of the function objects. std::less is a template class which requires a template parameter and represents a homogeneous comparison. This template parameter can be omitted to default to std::less<void> which allows heterogeneous comparisons. The argument seems to be that the homogeneous case is unnecessary as it's handled fine by the heterogeneous approach, so the design can be simplified considerably and a class template isn't needed at all.
As to why the other operators besides operator< are required I'm not completely sure. My best guess is that this is just part of what it means to have a total order defined in C++ between two, possibly different, types.
On cppreference on std::ranges::less, in notes we can see that:
Unlike std::less, std::ranges::less requires all six comparison operators <, <=, >, >=, == and != to be valid (via the totally_ordered_with constraint).
But... why? Why would we use std::ranges::less{} instead of std::less{}? What is the practical situation in which we want to less{} only if there are other comparison operators defined, not only the < one?
What is the practical situation in which we want to less{} only if there are other comparison operators defined, not only the < one?
Not everything about the Ranges library is based purely on what is "practical". Much of it is about making the language and library make logical sense.
Concepts as a language feature gives the standard library the opportunity to define meaningful combinations of object features. To say that a type has an operator< is useful from the purely practical perspective of telling you what operations are available to it. But it doesn't really say anything meaningful about the type.
If a type is totally ordered, then that logically means that you could use any of the comparison operators to compare two objects of that type. Under the idea of a total order, a < b and b > a are equivalent statements. So it makes sense that if code is restricted to types that provide a total order, that code should be permitted to use either statement.
ranges::less::operator() does not use any operator other than <. But this function is constrained to types modelling the totally_ordered concept. This constraint exists because that's what ranges::less is for: comparing types which are totally ordered. It could have a more narrow constraint, but that would be throwing away any meaning provided by total ordering.
It also prevents you from exposing arbitrary implementation details to users. For example, let's say that you've got a template that takes some type T and you want to use T in a ranges::less-based operation. If you constrain this template to just having an operator<, then you have effectively put your implementation into the constraint. You no longer have the freedom for the implementation to switch to ranges::greater internally. Whereas if you had put std::totally_ordered in your constraint, you would make it clear to the user what they need to do while giving yourself the freedom to use whatever functors you need.
And since operator<=> exists and makes it easy to implement the ordering operators in one function, there's no practical downside. Well, except for code that has to compile on both C++17 and C++20.
Essentially, you shouldn't be writing types that are "ordered" by just writing operator< to begin with.
As far as I can tell based on the proposal the idea is to just simplify the design of the function objects. std::less is a template class which requires a template parameter and represents a homogeneous comparison. This template parameter can be omitted to default to std::less<void> which allows heterogeneous comparisons. The argument seems to be that the homogeneous case is unnecessary as it's handled fine by the heterogeneous approach, so the design can be simplified considerably and a class template isn't needed at all.
As to why the other operators besides operator< are required I'm not completely sure. My best guess is that this is just part of what it means to have a total order defined in C++ between two, possibly different, types.
In Rust, the main tool for abstraction are traits. In C++, there are two tools for abstractions: abstract classes and templates. To get rid of some of the disadvantages of using templates (e.g. hard to read error messages), C++ introduced concepts which are "named sets of requirements".
Both features seem to be fairly similar:
Defining a trait/concept is done by listing requirements.
Both can be used to bound/restrict generic/template type parameters.
Rust traits and C++ templates with concepts are both monomorphized (I know Rust traits can also be used with dynamic dispatch, but that's a different story).
But from what I understand, there are also notable differences. For example, C++'s concepts seem to define a set of expressions that have to be valid instead of listing function signatures. But there is a lot of different and confusing information out there (maybe because concepts only land in C++20?). That's why I'd like to know: what exactly are the differences between and the similarities of C++'s concepts and Rust's traits?
Are there features that are only offered by either concepts or traits? E.g. what about Rust's associated types and consts? Or bounding a type by multiple traits/concepts?
Disclaimer: I have not yet used concepts, all I know about them was gleaned from the various proposals and cppreference, so take this answer with a grain of salt.
Run-Time Polymorphism
Rust Traits are used both for Compile-Time Polymorphism and, sometimes, Run-Time Polymorphism; Concepts are only about Compile-Time Polymorphism.
Structural vs Nominal.
The greatest difference between Concepts and Traits is that Concepts use structural typing whereas Traits use nominal typing:
In C++ a type never explicitly satisfies a Concept; it may "accidentally" satisfy it if it happens to satisfy all requirements.
In Rust a specific syntactic construct impl Trait for Type is used to explicitly indicates that a type implements a Trait.
There are a number of consequences; in general Nominal Typing is better from a maintainability point of view -- adding a requirement to a Trait -- whereas Structural Typing is better a bridging 3rd party libraries -- a type from library A can satisfy a Concept from library B without them being aware of each other.
Constraints
Traits are mandatory:
No method can be called on a variable of a generic type without this type being required to implement a trait providing the method.
Concepts are entirely optional:
A method can be called on a variable of a generic type without this type being required to satisfy any Concept, or being constrained in any way.
A method can be called on a variable of a generic type satisfying a Concept (or several) without that method being specified by any Concept or Constraint.
Constraints (see note) can be entirely ad-hoc, and specify requirements without using a named Concept; and once again, they are entirely optional.
Note: a Constraint is introduced by a requires clause and specifies either ad-hoc requirements or requirements based on Concepts.
Requirements
The set of expressible requirements is different:
Concepts/Constraints work by substitution, so allow the whole breadth of the languages; requirements include: nested types/constants/variables, methods, fields, ability to be used as an argument of another function/method, ability to used as a generic argument of another type, and combinations thereof.
Traits, by contrast, only allow a small set of requirements: associated types/constants, and methods.
Overload Selection
Rust has no concept of ad-hoc overloading, overloading only occurs by Traits and specialization is not possible yet.
C++ Constraints can be used to "order" overloads from least specific to most specific, so the compiler can automatically select the most specific overload for which requirements are satisfied.
Note: prior to this, either SFINAE or tag-dispatching would be used in C++ to achieve the selection; calisthenics were required to work with open-ended overload sets.
Disjunction
How to use this feature is not quite clear to me yet.
The requirement mechanisms in Rust are purely additive (conjunctions, aka &&), in contrast, in C++ requires clauses can contain disjunctions (aka ||).
This is a C++ / D cross-over question. The D programming language has ranges that -in contrast to C++ libraries such as Boost.Range- are not based on iterator pairs. The official C++ Ranges Study Group seems to have been bogged down in nailing a technical specification.
Question: does the current C++11 or the upcoming C++14 Standard have any obstacles that prevent adopting D ranges -as well as a suitably rangefied version of <algorithm>- wholesale?
I don't know D or its ranges well enough, but they seem lazy and composable as well as capable of providing a superset of the STL's algorithms. Given their claim to success for D, it would seem very nice to have as a library for C++. I wonder how essential D's unique features (e.g. string mixins, uniform function call syntax) were for implementing its ranges, and whether C++ could mimic that without too much effort (e.g. C++14 constexpr seems quite similar to D compile-time function evaluation)
Note: I am seeking technical answers, not opinions whether D ranges are the right design to have as a C++ library.
I don't think there is any inherent technical limitation in C++ which would make it impossible to define a system of D-style ranges and corresponding algorithms in C++. The biggest language level problem would be that C++ range-based for-loops require that begin() and end() can be used on the ranges but assuming we would go to the length of defining a library using D-style ranges, extending range-based for-loops to deal with them seems a marginal change.
The main technical problem I have encountered when experimenting with algorithms on D-style ranges in C++ was that I couldn't make the algorithms as fast as my iterator (actually, cursor) based implementations. Of course, this could just be my algorithm implementations but I haven't seen anybody providing a reasonable set of D-style range based algorithms in C++ which I could profile against. Performance is important and the C++ standard library shall provide, at least, weakly efficient implementations of algorithms (a generic implementation of an algorithm is called weakly efficient if it is at least as fast when applied to a data structure as a custom implementation of the same algorithm using the same data structure using the same programming language). I wasn't able to create weakly efficient algorithms based on D-style ranges and my objective are actually strongly efficient algorithms (similar to weakly efficient but allowing any programming language and only assuming the same underlying hardware).
When experimenting with D-style range based algorithms I found the algorithms a lot harder to implement than iterator-based algorithms and found it necessary to deal with kludges to work around some of their limitations. Of course, not everything in the current way algorithms are specified in C++ is perfect either. A rough outline of how I want to change the algorithms and the abstractions they work with is on may STL 2.0 page. This page doesn't really deal much with ranges, however, as this is a related but somewhat different topic. I would rather envision iterator (well, really cursor) based ranges than D-style ranges but the question wasn't about that.
One technical problem all range abstractions in C++ do face is having to deal with temporary objects in a reasonable way. For example, consider this expression:
auto result = ranges::unique(ranges::sort(std::vector<int>{ read_integers() }));
In dependent of whether ranges::sort() or ranges::unique() are lazy or not, the representation of the temporary range needs to be dealt with. Merely providing a view of the source range isn't an option for either of these algorithms because the temporary object will go away at the end of the expression. One possibility could be to move the range if it comes in as r-value, requiring different result for both ranges::sort() and ranges::unique() to distinguish the cases of the actual argument being either a temporary object or an object kept alive independently. D doesn't have this particular problem because it is garbage collected and the source range would, thus, be kept alive in either case.
The above example also shows one of the problems with possibly lazy evaluated algorithm: since any type, including types which can't be spelled out otherwise, can be deduced by auto variables or templated functions, there is nothing forcing the lazy evaluation at the end of an expression. Thus, the results from the expression templates can be obtained and the algorithm isn't really executed. That is, if an l-value is passed to an algorithm, it needs to be made sure that the expression is actually evaluated to obtain the actual effect. For example, any sort() algorithm mutating the entire sequence clearly does the mutation in-place (if you want a version doesn't do it in-place just copy the container and apply the in-place version; if you only have a non-in-place version you can't avoid the extra sequence which may be an immediate problem, e.g., for gigantic sequences). Assuming it is lazy in some way the l-value access to the original sequence provides a peak into the current status which is almost certainly a bad thing. This may imply that lazy evaluation of mutating algorithms isn't such a great idea anyway.
In any case, there are some aspects of C++ which make it impossible to immediately adopt the D-sytle ranges although the same considerations also apply to other range abstractions. I'd think these considerations are, thus, somewhat out of scope for the question, too. Also, the obvious "solution" to the first of the problems (add garbage collection) is unlikely to happen. I don't know if there is a solution to the second problem in D. There may emerge a solution to the second problem (tentatively dubbed operator auto) but I'm not aware of a concrete proposal or how such a feature would actually look like.
BTW, the Ranges Study Group isn't really bogged down by any technical details. So far, we merely tried to find out what problems we are actually trying to solve and to scope out, to some extend, the solution space. Also, groups generally don't get any work done, at all! The actual work is always done by individuals, often by very few individuals. Since a major part of the work is actually designing a set of abstractions I would expect that the foundations of any results of the Ranges Study Group is done by 1 to 3 individuals who have some vision of what is needed and how it should look like.
My C++11 knowledge is much more limited than I'd like it to be, so there may be newer features which improve things that I'm not aware of yet, but there are three areas that I can think of at the moment which are at least problematic: template constraints, static if, and type introspection.
In D, a range-based function will usually have a template constraint on it indicating which type of ranges it accepts (e.g. forward range vs random-access range). For instance, here's a simplified signature for std.algorithm.sort:
auto sort(alias less = "a < b", Range)(Range r)
if(isRandomAccessRange!Range &&
hasSlicing!Range &&
hasLength!Range)
{...}
It checks that the type being passed in is a random-access range, that it can be sliced, and that it has a length property. Any type which does not satisfy those requirements will not compile with sort, and when the template constraint fails, it makes it clear to the programmer why their type won't work with sort (rather than just giving a nasty compiler error from in the middle of the templated function when it fails to compile with the given type).
Now, while that may just seem like a usability improvement over just giving a compilation error when sort fails to compile because the type doesn't have the right operations, it actually has a large impact on function overloading as well as type introspection. For instance, here are two of std.algorithm.find's overloads:
R find(alias pred = "a == b", R, E)(R haystack, E needle)
if(isInputRange!R &&
is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle)) : bool))
{...}
R1 find(alias pred = "a == b", R1, R2)(R1 haystack, R2 needle)
if(isForwardRange!R1 && isForwardRange!R2 &&
is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle.front)) : bool) &&
!isRandomAccessRange!R1)
{...}
The first one accepts a needle which is only a single element, whereas the second accepts a needle which is a forward range. The two are able to have different parameter types based purely on the template constraints and can have drastically different code internally. Without something like template constraints, you can't have templated functions which are overloaded on attributes of their arguments (as opposed to being overloaded on the specific types themselves), which makes it much harder (if not impossible) to have different implementations based on the genre of range being used (e.g. input range vs forward range) or other attributes of the types being used. Some work has been being done in this area in C++ with concepts and similar ideas, but AFAIK, C++ is still seriously lacking in the features necessary to overload templates (be they templated functions or templated types) based on the attributes of their argument types rather than specializing on specific argument types (as occurs with template specialization).
A related feature would be static if. It's the same as if, except that its condition is evaluated at compile time, and whether it's true or false will actually determine which branch is compiled in as opposed to which branch is run. It allows you to branch code based on conditions known at compile time. e.g.
static if(isDynamicArray!T)
{}
else
{}
or
static if(isRandomAccessRange!Range)
{}
else static if(isBidirectionalRange!Range)
{}
else static if(isForwardRange!Range)
{}
else static if(isInputRange!Range)
{}
else
static assert(0, Range.stringof ~ " is not a valid range!");
static if can to some extent obviate the need for template constraints, as you can essentially put the overloads for a templated function within a single function. e.g.
R find(alias pred = "a == b", R, E)(R haystack, E needle)
{
static if(isInputRange!R &&
is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle)) : bool))
{...}
else static if(isForwardRange!R1 && isForwardRange!R2 &&
is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle.front)) : bool) &&
!isRandomAccessRange!R1)
{...}
}
but that still results in nastier errors when compilation fails and actually makes it so that you can't overload the template (at least with D's implementation), because overloading is determined before the template is instantiated. So, you can use static if to specialize pieces of a template implementation, but it doesn't quite get you enough of what template constraints get you to not need template constraints (or something similar).
Rather, static if is excellent for doing stuff like specializing only a piece of your function's implementation or for making it so that a range type can properly inherit the attributes of the range type that it's wrapping. For instance, if you call std.algorithm.map on an array of integers, the resultant range can have slicing (because the source range does), whereas if you called map on a range which didn't have slicing (e.g. the ranges returned by std.algorithm.filter can't have slicing), then the resultant ranges won't have slicing. In order to do that, map uses static if to compile in opSlice only when the source range supports it. Currently, map 's code that does this looks like
static if (hasSlicing!R)
{
static if (is(typeof(_input[ulong.max .. ulong.max])))
private alias opSlice_t = ulong;
else
private alias opSlice_t = uint;
static if (hasLength!R)
{
auto opSlice(opSlice_t low, opSlice_t high)
{
return typeof(this)(_input[low .. high]);
}
}
else static if (is(typeof(_input[opSlice_t.max .. $])))
{
struct DollarToken{}
enum opDollar = DollarToken.init;
auto opSlice(opSlice_t low, DollarToken)
{
return typeof(this)(_input[low .. $]);
}
auto opSlice(opSlice_t low, opSlice_t high)
{
return this[low .. $].take(high - low);
}
}
}
This is code in the type definition of map's return type, and whether that code is compiled in or not depends entirely on the results of the static ifs, none of which could be replaced with template specializations based on specific types without having to write a new specialized template for map for every new type that you use with it (which obviously isn't tenable). In order to compile in code based on attributes of types rather than with specific types, you really need something like static if (which C++ does not currently have).
The third major item which C++ is lacking (and which I've more or less touched on throughout) is type introspection. The fact that you can do something like is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle)) : bool) or isForwardRange!Range is crucial. Without the ability to check whether a particular type has a particular set of attributes or that a particular piece of code compiles, you can't even write the conditions which template constraints and static if use. For instance, std.range.isInputRange looks something like this
template isInputRange(R)
{
enum bool isInputRange = is(typeof(
{
R r = void; // can define a range object
if (r.empty) {} // can test for empty
r.popFront(); // can invoke popFront()
auto h = r.front; // can get the front of the range
}));
}
It checks that a particular piece of code compiles for the given type. If it does, then that type can be used as an input range. If it doesn't, then it can't. AFAIK, it's impossible to do anything even vaguely like this in C++. But to sanely implement ranges, you really need to be able to do stuff like have isInputRange or test whether a particular type compiles with sort - is(typeof(sort(myRange))). Without that, you can't specialize implementations based on what types of operations a particular range supports, you can't properly forward the attributes of a range when wrapping it (and range functions wrap their arguments in new ranges all the time), and you can't even properly protect your function against being compiled with types which won't work with it. And, of course, the results of static if and template constraints also affect the type introspection (as they affect what will and won't compile), so the three features are very much interconnected.
Really, the main reasons that ranges don't work very well in C++ are the some reasons that metaprogramming in C++ is primitive in comparison to metaprogramming in D. AFAIK, there's no reason that these features (or similar ones) couldn't be added to C++ and fix the problem, but until C++ has metaprogramming capabilities similar to those of D, ranges in C++ are going to be seriously impaired.
Other features such as mixins and Uniform Function Call Syntax would also help, but they're nowhere near as fundamental. Mixins would help primarily with reducing code duplication, and UFCS helps primarily with making it so that generic code can just call all functions as if they were member functions so that if a type happens to define a particular function (e.g. find) then that would be used instead of the more general, free function version (and the code still works if no such member function is declared, because then the free function is used). UFCS is not fundamentally required, and you could even go the opposite direction and favor free functions for everything (like C++11 did with begin and end), though to do that well, it essentially requires that the free functions be able to test for the existence of the member function and then call the member function internally rather than using their own implementations. So, again you need type introspection along with static if and/or template constraints.
As much as I love ranges, at this point, I've pretty much given up on attempting to do anything with them in C++, because the features to make them sane just aren't there. But if other folks can figure out how to do it, all the more power to them. Regardless of ranges though, I'd love to see C++ gain features such as template constraints, static if, and type introspection, because without them, metaprogramming is way less pleasant, to the point that while I do it all the time in D, I almost never do it in C++.
I want to know what are the semantic differences between the C++ full concepts proposal and template constraints (for instance, constraints as appeared in Dlang or the new concepts-lite proposal for C++1y).
What are full-fledged concepts capable of doing than template constraints cannot do?
The following information is out of date. It needs to be updated according to the latest Concepts Lite draft.
Section 3 of the constraints proposal covers this in reasonable depth.
The concepts proposal has been put on the back burners for a short while in the hope that constraints (i.e. concepts-lite) can be fleshed out and implemented in a shorter time scale, currently aiming for at least something in C++14. The constraints proposal is designed to act as a smooth transition to a later definition of concepts. Constraints are part of the concepts proposal and are a necessary building block in its definition.
In Design of Concept Libraries for C++, Sutton and Stroustrup consider the following relationship:
Concepts = Constraints + Axioms
To quickly summarise their meanings:
Constraint - A predicate over statically evaluable properties of a type. Purely syntactic requirements. Not a domain abstraction.
Axioms - Semantic requirements of types that are assumed to be true. Not statically checked.
Concepts - General, abstract requirements of algorithms on their arguments. Defined in terms of constraints and axioms.
So if you add axioms (semantic properties) to constraints (syntactic properties), you get concepts.
Concepts-Lite
The concepts-lite proposal brings us only the first part, constraints, but this is an important and necessary step towards fully-fledged concepts.
Constraints
Constraints are all about syntax. They give us a way of statically discerning properties of a type at compile-time, so that we can restrict the types used as template arguments based on their syntactic properties. In the current proposal for constraints, they are expressed with a subset of propositional calculus using logical connectives like && and ||.
Let's take a look at a constraint in action:
template <typename Cont>
requires Sortable<Cont>()
void sort(Cont& container);
Here we are defining a function template called sort. The new addition is the requires clause. The requires clause gives some constraints over the template arguments for this function. In particular, this constraint says that the type Cont must be a Sortable type. A neat thing is that it can be written in a more concise form as:
template <Sortable Cont>
void sort(Cont& container);
Now if you attempt to pass anything that is not considered Sortable to this function, you'll get a nice error that immediately tells you that the type deduced for T is not a Sortable type. If you had done this in C++11, you'd have had some horrible error thrown from inside the sort function that makes no sense to anybody.
Constraints predicates are very similar to type traits. They take some template argument type and give you some information about it. Constraints attempt to answer the following kinds of questions about type:
Does this type have such-and-such operator overloaded?
Can these types be used as operands to this operator?
Does this type have such-and-such trait?
Is this constant expression equal to that? (for non-type template arguments)
Does this type have a function called yada-yada that returns that type?
Does this type meet all the syntactic requirements to be used as that?
However, constraints are not meant to replace type traits. Instead, they will work hand in hand. Some type traits can now be defined in terms of concepts and some concepts in terms of type traits.
Examples
So the important thing about constraints is that they do not care about semantics one iota. Some good examples of constraints are:
Equality_comparable<T>: Checks whether the type has == with both operands of that same type.
Equality_comparable<T,U>: Checks whether there is a == with left and right operands of the given types
Arithmetic<T>: Checks whether the type is an arithmetic type.
Floating_point<T>: Checks whether the type is a floating point type.
Input_iterator<T>: Checks whether the type supports the syntactic operations that an input iterator must support.
Same<T,U>: Checks whether the given type are the same.
You can try all this out with a special concepts-lite build of GCC.
Beyond Concepts-Lite
Now we get into everything beyond the concepts-lite proposal. This is even more futuristic than the future itself. Everything from here on out is likely to change quite a bit.
Axioms
Axioms are all about semantics. They specify relationships, invariants, complexity guarantees, and other such things. Let's look at an example.
While the Equality_comparable<T,U> constraint will tell you that there is an operator== that takes types T and U, it doesn't tell you what that operation means. For that, we will have the axiom Equivalence_relation. This axiom says that when objects of these two types are compared with operator== giving true, these objects are equivalent. This might seem redundant, but it's certainly not. You could easily define an operator== that instead behaved like an operator<. You'd be evil to do that, but you could.
Another example is a Greater axiom. It's all well and good to say two objects of type T can be compared with > and < operators, but what do they mean? The Greater axiom says that iff x is greater then y, then y is less than x. The proposed specification such an axiom looks like:
template<typename T>
axiom Greater(T x, T y) {
(x>y) == (y<x);
}
So axioms answer the following types of questions:
Do these two operators have this relationship with each other?
Does this operator for such-and-such type mean this?
Does this operation on that type have this complexity?
Does this result of that operator imply that this is true?
That is, they are concerned entirely with the semantics of types and operations on those types. These things cannot be statically checked. If this needs to be checked, a type must in some way proclaim that it adheres to these semantics.
Examples
Here are some common examples of axioms:
Equivalence_relation: If two objects compare ==, they are equivalent.
Greater: Whenever x > y, then y < x.
Less_equal: Whenever x <= y, then !(y < x).
Copy_equality: For x and y of type T: if x == y, a new object of the same type created by copy construction T{x} == y and still x == y (that is, it is non-destructive).
Concepts
Now concepts are very easy to define; they are simply the combination of constraints and axioms. They provide an abstract requirement over the syntax and semantics of a type.
As an example, consider the following Ordered concept:
concept Ordered<Regular T> {
requires constraint Less<T>;
requires axiom Strict_total_order<less<T>, T>;
requires axiom Greater<T>;
requires axiom Less_equal<T>;
requires axiom Greater_equal<T>;
}
First note that for the template type T to be Ordered, it must also meet the requirements of the Regular concept. The Regular concept is a very basic requirements that the type is well-behaved - it can be constructed, destroyed, copied and compared.
In addition to those requirements, the Ordered requires that T meet one constraint and four axioms:
Constraint: An Ordered type must have an operator<. This is statically checked so it must exist.
Axioms: For x and y of type T:
x < y gives a strict total ordering.
When x is greater than y, y is less than x, and vice versa.
When x is less than or equal to y, y is not less than x, and vice versa.
When x is greater than or equal to y, y is not greater than x, and vice versa.
Combining constraints and axioms like this gives you concepts. They define the syntactic and semantic requirements for abstract types for use with algorithms. Algorithms currently have to assume that the types used will support certain operations and express certain semantics. With concepts, we'll be able to ensure that requirements are met.
In the latest concepts design, the compiler will only check that the syntactic requirements of a concept are fulfilled by the template argument. The axioms are left unchecked. Since axioms denote semantics that are not statically evaluable (or often impossible to check entirely), the author of a type would have to explicitly state that their type meets all the requirements of a concept. This was known as concept mapping in previous designs but has since been removed.
Examples
Here are some examples of concepts:
Regular types are constructable, destructable, copyable, and can be compared.
Ordered types support operator<, and have a strict total ordering and other ordering semantics.
Copyable types are copy constructable, destructable, and if x is equal to y and x is copied, the copy will also compare equal to y.
Iterator types must have associated types value_type, reference, difference_type, and iterator_category which themselves must meet certain concepts. They must also support operator++ and be dereferenceable.
The Road to Concepts
Constraints are the first step towards a full concepts feature of C++. They are a very important step, because they provide the statically enforceable requirements of types so that we can write much cleaner template functions and classes. Now we can avoid some of the difficulties and ugliness of std::enable_if and its metaprogramming friends.
However, there are a number of things that the constraints proposal does not do:
It does not provide a concept definition language.
Constraints are not concept maps. The user does not need to specifically annotate their types as meeting certain constraints. They are statically checked used simple compile-time language features.
The implementations of templates are not constrained by the constraints on their template arguments. That is, if your function template does anything with an object of constrained type that it shouldn't do, the compiler has no way to diagnose that. A fully featured concepts proposal would be able to do this.
The constraints proposal has been designed specifically so that a full concepts proposal can be introduced on top of it. With any luck, that transition should be a fairly smooth ride. The concepts group are looking to introduce constraints for C++14 (or in a technical report soon after), while full concepts might start to emerge sometime around C++17.
See also "what's 'lite' about concepts lite" in section 2.3 of the recent (March 12) Concepts telecon minutes and record of discussion, which were posted the same day here: http://isocpp.org/blog/2013/03/new-paper-n3576-sg8-concepts-teleconference-minutes-2013-03-12-herb-sutter .
My 2 cents:
The concepts-lite proposal is not meant to do "type checking" of template implementation. I.e., Concepts-lite will ensure (notionally) interface compatibility at the template instantiation site. Quoting from the paper: "concepts lite is an extension of C++ that allows the use of predicates to constrain template arguments". And that's it. It does not say that template body will be checked (in isolation) against the predicates. That probably means there is no first-class notion of archtypes when you are talking about concepts-lite. archtypes, if I remember correctly, in concepts-heavy proposal are types that offer no less and no more to satisfy the implementation of the template.
concepts-lite use glorified constexpr functions with a bit of syntax trick supported by the compiler. No changes in the lookup rules.
Programmers are not required to write concepts maps.
Finally, quoting again "The constraints proposal does not directly address the speciļ¬cation or use of semantics; it is targeted only at checking syntax." That would mean axioms are not within the scope (so far).