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.
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.
I've been reading a bit about C++20's consistent comparison (i.e. operator<=>) but couldn't understand what's the practical difference between std::strong_ordering and std::weak_ordering (same goes for the _equality version for this manner).
Other than being very descriptive about the substitutability of the type, does it actually affect the generated code? Does it add any constraints for how one could use the type?
Would love to see a real-life example that demonstrates this.
Does it add any constraints for how one could use the type?
One very significant constraint (which wasn't intended by the original paper) was the adoption of the significance of strong_ordering by P0732 as an indicator that a class type can be used as a non-type template parameter. weak_ordering isn't sufficient for this case due to how template equivalence has to work. This is no longer the case, as non-type template parameters no longer work this way (see P1907R0 for explanation of issues and P1907R1 for wording of the new rules).
Generally, it's possible that some algorithms simply require weak_ordering but other algorithms require strong_ordering, so being able to annotate that on the type might mean a compile error (insufficiently strong ordering provided) instead of simply failing to meet the algorithm's requirements at runtime and hence just being undefined behavior. But all the algorithms in the standard library and the Ranges TS that I know of simply require weak_ordering. I do not know of one that requires strong_ordering off the top of my head.
Does it actually affect the generated code?
Outside of the cases where strong_ordering is required, or an algorithm explicitly chooses different behavior based on the comparison category, no.
There really isn't any reason to have std::weak_ordering. It's true that the standard describes operations like sorting in terms of a "strict" weak order, but there's an isomorphism between strict weak orderings and a totally ordered partition of the original set into incomparability equivalence classes. It's rare to encounter generic code that is interested both in the order structure (which considers each equivalence class to be one "value") and in some possibly finer notion of equivalence: note that when the standard library uses < (or <=>) it does not use == (which might be finer).
The usual example for std::weak_ordering is a case-insensitive string, since for instance printing two strings that differ only by case certainly produces different behavior despite their equivalence (under any operator). However, lots of types can have different behavior despite being ==: two std::vector<int> objects, for instance, might have the same contents and different capacities, so that appending to them might invalidate iterators differently.
The simple fact is that the "equality" implied by std::strong_ordering::equivalent but not by std::weak_ordering::equivalent is irrelevant to the very code that stands to benefit from it, because generic code doesn't depend on the implied behavioral changes, and non-generic code doesn't need to distinguish between the ordering types because it knows the rules for the type on which it operates.
The standard attempts to give the distinction meaning by talking about "substitutability", but that is inevitably circular because it can sensibly refer only to the very state examined by the comparisons. This was discussed prior to publishing C++20, but (perhaps for the obvious reasons) not much of the planned further discussion has taken place.
Will it be possible to specialize std::optional for user-defined types? If not, is it too late to propose this to the standard?
My use case for this is an integer-like class that represents a value within a range. For instance, you could have an integer that lies somewhere in the range [0, 10]. Many of my applications are sensitive to even a single byte of overhead, so I would be unable to use a non-specialized std::optional due to the extra bool. However, a specialization for std::optional would be trivial for an integer that has a range smaller than its underlying type. We could simply store the value 11 in my example. This should provide no space or time overhead over a non-optional value.
Am I allowed to create this specialization in namespace std?
The general rule in 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std]/1 applies:
A program may add a template specialization for any standard library template to namespace std only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original template and is not explicitly
prohibited.
So I would say it's allowed.
N.B. optional will not be part of the C++14 standard, it will be included in a separate Technical Specification on library fundamentals, so there is time to change the rule if my interpretation is wrong.
If you are after a library that efficiently packs the value and the "no-value" flag into one memory location, I recommend looking at compact_optional. It does exactly this.
It does not specialize boost::optional or std::experimental::optional but it can wrap them inside, giving you a uniform interface, with optimizations where possible and a fallback to 'classical' optional where needed.
I've asked about the same thing, regarding specializing optional<bool> and optional<tribool> among other examples, to only use one byte. While the "legality" of doing such things was not under discussion, I do think that one should not, in theory, be allowed to specialize optional<T> in contrast to eg.: hash (which is explicitly allowed).
I don't have the logs with me but part of the rationale is that the interface treats access to the data as access to a pointer or reference, meaning that if you use a different data structure in the internals, some of the invariants of access might change; not to mention providing the interface with access to the data might require something like reinterpret_cast<(some_reference_type)>. Using a uint8_t to store a optional-bool, for example, would impose several extra requirements on the interface of optional<bool> that are different to the ones of optional<T>. What should the return type of operator* be, for example?
Basically, I'm guessing the idea is to avoid the whole vector<bool> fiasco again.
In your example, it might not be too bad, as the access type is still your_integer_type& (or pointer). But in that case, simply designing your integer type to allow for a "zombie" or "undetermined" value instead of relying on optional<> to do the job for you, with its extra overhead and requirements, might be the safest choice.
Make it easy to opt-in to space savings
I have decided that this is a useful thing to do, but a full specialization is a little more work than necessary (for instance, getting operator= correct).
I have posted on the Boost mailing list a way to simplify the task of specializing, especially when you only want to specialize some instantiations of a class template.
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-Specializing-optional-to-save-space-td4680362.html
My current interface involves a special tag type used to 'unlock' access to particular functions. I have creatively named this type optional_tag. Only optional can construct an optional_tag. For a type to opt-in to a space-efficient representation, it needs the following member functions:
T(optional_tag) constructs an uninitialized value
initialize(optional_tag, Args && ...) constructs an object when there may be one in existence already
uninitialize(optional_tag) destroys the contained object
is_initialized(optional_tag) checks whether the object is currently in an initialized state
By always requiring the optional_tag parameter, we do not limit any function signatures. This is why, for instance, we cannot use operator bool() as the test, because the type may want that operator for other reasons.
An advantage of this over some other possible methods of implementing it is that you can make it work with any type that can naturally support such a state. It does not add any requirements such as having a move constructor.
You can see a full code implementation of the idea at
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/8c5e7567f0d8b3a04cc98142060a020b58b2a00f/bounded_integer/detail/optional/optional.hpp?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default
and for a class using the specialization:
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/8c5e7567f0d8b3a04cc98142060a020b58b2a00f/bounded_integer/detail/class.hpp?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default
(lines 220 through 242)
An alternative approach
This is in contrast to my previous implementation, which required users to specialize a class template. You can see the old version here:
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/2defec41add2079ba023c2c6d118ed8a274423c8/bounded_integer/detail/optional/optional.hpp
and
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/2defec41add2079ba023c2c6d118ed8a274423c8/bounded_integer/detail/optional/specialization.hpp
The problem with this approach is that it is simply more work for the user. Rather than adding four member functions, the user must go into a new namespace and specialize a template.
In practice, all specializations would have an in_place_t constructor that forwards all arguments to the underlying type. The optional_tag approach, on the other hand, can just use the underlying type's constructors directly.
In the specialize optional_storage approach, the user also has the responsibility of adding proper reference-qualified overloads of a value function. In the optional_tag approach, we already have the value so we do not have to pull it out.
optional_storage also required standardizing as part of the interface of optional two helper classes, only one of which the user is supposed to specialize (and sometimes delegate their specialization to the other).
The difference between this and compact_optional
compact_optional is a way of saying "Treat this special sentinel value as the type being not present, almost like a NaN". It requires the user to know that the type they are working with has some special sentinel. An easily specializable optional is a way of saying "My type does not need extra space to store the not present state, but that state is not a normal value." It does not require anyone to know about the optimization to take advantage of it; everyone who uses the type gets it for free.
The future
My goal is to get this first into boost::optional, and then part of the std::optional proposal. Until then, you can always use bounded::optional, although it has a few other (intentional) interface differences.
I don't see how allowing or not allowing some particular bit pattern to represent the unengaged state falls under anything the standard covers.
If you were trying to convince a library vendor to do this, it would require an implementation, exhaustive tests to show you haven't inadvertently blown any of the requirements of optional (or accidentally invoked undefined behavior) and extensive benchmarking to show this makes a notable difference in real world (and not just contrived) situations.
Of course, you can do whatever you want to your own code.
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).
Why would you need to overload the [] operator? I have never come across a practical scenario where this was necessary. Can somebody tell me a practical use case for this.
Err.. std::vector<t>, std::basic_string<t>, std::map<k, v>, and std::deque<t> ?
I used this for a class representing a registry key, where operator[] returned an object representing a registry value with the string between []s.
See also, the Spirit Parser Framework, which uses [] for semantic actions.
Any indexable container can usefully define operator[] to become usable in any template that uses []-syntax indexing.
You don't need that syntax sugar if you're not doing generic programming -- it may look nice, but, cosmetics apart, you could always define specific named methods such as getAt, setAt, and the like, with similar and simpler-to-code functionality.
However, generic programming is at the core of modern C++... and it bears an eerie resemblance to "compile-time, type-safe duck typing" (I'm biased towards such peculiar terminology, of course, having had a part in shaping it -- cfr wikipedia;-).
Just as you should try to use, e.g., prefix-* to mean "dereferencing" for all kinds of iterators and other pointer-like types (so they can be duck-typingly substituted for pointers in a template!), so similarly you should strive to define operator[] in container types where it makes sense, just so they can be duck-typingly substituted for arrays in appropriate templates.
It is useful if you implement almost any type of container that provides random access (or at least some form of keyed access) to its elements (e.g., consider std::vector).
If you write a class that inherits from another class that implements the [] operator, you might want to overwrite the [] operator, such as std::vector or std::string. If you don't do this, your class may not work as the user expects, as your class will implicitly inherit the parent's implementation of [].
Well, several STL containers give some examples - vector<> overloads it to make it act like an array. map<> for example provides the operator[] overload to provide an 'associative array'.
While it is not strictly necessary, it is incredibly useful in making user-defined containers or strings behave like builtin arrays or C strings. This cuts down on verbosity a lot (for example, in Java, you would have to use x.getElementAt(i) while in C++ you can use x[i]; similarly, in Java you need x.compareTo(y)<0, while in C++ you can achieve the same thing using x < y). It is syntactic sugar... but it is very, very tasty.