The following code fails the static assertion:
#include <gsl/span>
#include <iterator>
#include <type_traits>
int main()
{
int theArr[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
gsl::span<int> theSpan{ theArr, std::size(theArr) };
using std::cbegin;
auto it1 = cbegin(theSpan);
auto it2 = theSpan.cbegin();
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(it1), decltype(it2)>);
}
This fails because std::cbegin() calls the .begin() method on a const ref of the container. For standard-defined containers, this returns a const_iterator, which is the same type that .cbegin() returns. However, gsl::span is a bit unique because it models a sort of "borrow type". A const gsl::span behaves like a const pointer; the span itself is const, but what it points-to is not const. Hence, the .begin() method on a const gsl::span still returns a non-const iterator, whereas explicitly calling .cbegin() returns a const iterator.
I'm curious as to why std::cbegin() was not defined as invoking .cbegin() on the container (which all standard containers seem to implement) to account for cases such as this.
This is somewhat related to: Why does std::cbegin return the same type as std::begin
this fails because std::cbegin() calls the .begin()
To be more precise, std::cbegin calls std::begin, which in the generic overload calls c.begin.
For what it's worth, it should be possible to fix gsl::span to return const iterator upon std::cbegin if the designers of gsl specify that there is a specialisation for the generic overload of std::cbegin for gsl::span that uses c.cbegin instead of std::begin, if that is the desired behaviour. I don't know their reasoning for not specifying such specialisation.
As for reasoning for why std::cbegin uses std::begin, I do not know for fact either, but it does have the advantage of being able to support containers that have a c.begin member, but not a c.cbegin member, which can be seen as a less strict requirement, as it can be satisfied by custom containers written prior to C++11, when there was no convention of providing a c.cbegin member function.
First, note that, per [tab:container.req]:
Expression: a.cbegin()
Return type: const_iterator
Operational semantics: const_cast<X const&>(a).begin();
Complexity: constant
Therefore, gsl::span is not a container at all. cbegin and cend are designed to work with containers. There are some exceptions (arrays, initializer_list) that require special care, but apparently the standard library cannot mention something like gsl::span.
Second, it is LWG 2128 that introduced global cbegin and cend. Let's see what the relevant part says:
Implement std::cbegin/cend() by calling std::begin/end(). This has
numerous advantages:
It automatically works with arrays, which is the whole point of these non-member functions.
It works with C++98/03-era user containers, written before cbegin/cend() members were invented.
It works with initializer_list, which is extremely minimal and lacks cbegin/cend() members.
[container.requirements.general]
guarantees that this is equivalent to calling cbegin/cend() members.
Essentially, calling std::begin/end() save the work of providing special care for arrays and initializer_list.
Related
Item 18 of Scott Meyers's book Effective STL: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of the Standard Template Library says to avoid vector <bool> as it's not an STL container and it doesn't really hold bools.
The following code:
vector <bool> v;
bool *pb =&v[0];
will not compile, violating a requirement of STL containers.
Error:
cannot convert 'std::vector<bool>::reference* {aka std::_Bit_reference*}' to 'bool*' in initialization
vector<T>::operator [] return type is supposed to be T&, but why is it a special case for vector<bool>?
What does vector<bool> really consist of?
The Item further says:
deque<bool> v; // is a STL container and it really contains bools
Can this be used as an alternative to vector<bool>?
Can anyone please explain this?
For space-optimization reasons, the C++ standard (as far back as C++98) explicitly calls out vector<bool> as a special standard container where each bool uses only one bit of space rather than one byte as a normal bool would (implementing a kind of "dynamic bitset"). In exchange for this optimization it doesn't offer all the capabilities and interface of a normal standard container.
In this case, since you can't take the address of a bit within a byte, things such as operator[] can't return a bool& but instead return a proxy object that allows to manipulate the particular bit in question. Since this proxy object is not a bool&, you can't assign its address to a bool* like you could with the result of such an operator call on a "normal" container. In turn this means that bool *pb =&v[0]; isn't valid code.
On the other hand deque doesn't have any such specialization called out so each bool takes a byte and you can take the address of the value return from operator[].
Finally note that the MS standard library implementation is (arguably) suboptimal in that it uses a small chunk size for deques, which means that using deque as a substitute isn't always the right answer.
The problems is that vector<bool> returns a proxy reference object instead of a true reference, so that C++98 style code bool * p = &v[0]; won't compile. However, modern C++11 with auto p = &v[0]; can be made to compile if operator& also returns a proxy pointer object. Howard Hinnant has written a blog post detailing the algorithmic improvements when using such proxy references and pointers.
Scott Meyers has a long Item 30 in More Effective C++ about proxy classes. You can come a long way to almost mimic the builtin types: for any given type T, a pair of proxies (e.g. reference_proxy<T> and iterator_proxy<T>) can be made mutually consistent in the sense that reference_proxy<T>::operator&() and iterator_proxy<T>::operator*() are each other's inverse.
However, at some point one needs to map the proxy objects back to behave like T* or T&. For iterator proxies, one can overload operator->() and access the template T's interface without reimplementing all the functionality. However, for reference proxies, you would need to overload operator.(), and that is not allowed in current C++ (although Sebastian Redl presented such a proposal on BoostCon 2013). You can make a verbose work-around like a .get() member inside the reference proxy, or implement all of T's interface inside the reference (this is what is done for vector<bool>::bit_reference), but this will either lose the builtin syntax or introduce user-defined conversions that do not have builtin semantics for type conversions (you can have at most one user-defined conversion per argument).
TL;DR: no vector<bool> is not a container because the Standard requires a real reference, but it can be made to behave almost like a container, at least much closer with C++11 (auto) than in C++98.
vector<bool> contains boolean values in compressed form using only one bit for value (and not 8 how bool[] arrays do). It is not possible to return a reference to a bit in c++, so there is a special helper type, "bit reference", which provides you a interface to some bit in memory and allows you to use standard operators and casts.
Many consider the vector<bool> specialization to be a mistake.
In a paper "Deprecating Vestigial Library Parts in C++17"
There is a proposal to
Reconsider vector Partial Specialization.
There has been a long history of the bool partial specialization of
std::vector not satisfying the container requirements, and in
particular, its iterators not satisfying the requirements of a random
access iterator. A previous attempt to deprecate this container was
rejected for C++11, N2204.
One of the reasons for rejection is that it is not clear what it would
mean to deprecate a particular specialization of a template. That
could be addressed with careful wording. The larger issue is that the
(packed) specialization of vector offers an important
optimization that clients of the standard library genuinely seek, but
would not longer be available. It is unlikely that we would be able to
deprecate this part of the standard until a replacement facility is
proposed and accepted, such as N2050. Unfortunately, there are no such
revised proposals currently being offered to the Library Evolution
Working Group.
Look at how it is implemented. the STL builds vastly on templates and therefore the headers do contain the code they do.
for instance look at the stdc++ implementation here.
also interesting even though not an stl conforming bit vector is the llvm::BitVector from here.
the essence of the llvm::BitVector is a nested class called reference and suitable operator overloading to make the BitVector behaves similar to vector with some limitations. The code below is a simplified interface to show how BitVector hides a class called reference to make the real implementation almost behave like a real array of bool without using 1 byte for each value.
class BitVector {
public:
class reference {
reference &operator=(reference t);
reference& operator=(bool t);
operator bool() const;
};
reference operator[](unsigned Idx);
bool operator[](unsigned Idx) const;
};
this code here has the nice properties:
BitVector b(10, false); // size 10, default false
BitVector::reference &x = b[5]; // that's what really happens
bool y = b[5]; // implicitly converted to bool
assert(b[5] == false); // converted to bool
assert(b[6] == b[7]); // bool operator==(const reference &, const reference &);
b[5] = true; // assignment on reference
assert(b[5] == true); // and actually it does work.
This code actually has a flaw, try to run:
std::for_each(&b[5], &b[6], some_func); // address of reference not an iterator
will not work because assert( (&b[5] - &b[3]) == (5 - 3) ); will fail (within llvm::BitVector)
this is the very simple llvm version. std::vector<bool> has also working iterators in it.
thus the call for(auto i = b.begin(), e = b.end(); i != e; ++i) will work. and also std::vector<bool>::const_iterator.
However there are still limitations in std::vector<bool> that makes it behave differently in some cases.
This comes from http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector-bool/
Vector of bool This is a specialized version of vector, which is used
for elements of type bool and optimizes for space.
It behaves like the unspecialized version of vector, with the
following changes:
The storage is not necessarily an array of bool values, but the library implementation may optimize storage so that each value is
stored in a single bit.
Elements are not constructed using the allocator object, but their value is directly set on the proper bit in the internal storage.
Member function flip and a new signature for member swap.
A special member type, reference, a class that accesses individual bits in the container's internal storage with an interface that
emulates a bool reference. Conversely, member type const_reference is
a plain bool.
The pointer and iterator types used by the container are not necessarily neither pointers nor conforming iterators, although they
shall simulate most of their expected behavior.
These changes provide a quirky interface to this specialization and
favor memory optimization over processing (which may or may not suit
your needs). In any case, it is not possible to instantiate the
unspecialized template of vector for bool directly. Workarounds to
avoid this range from using a different type (char, unsigned char) or
container (like deque) to use wrapper types or further specialize for
specific allocator types.
bitset is a class that provides a similar functionality for fixed-size
arrays of bits.
Item 18 of Scott Meyers's book Effective STL: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of the Standard Template Library says to avoid vector <bool> as it's not an STL container and it doesn't really hold bools.
The following code:
vector <bool> v;
bool *pb =&v[0];
will not compile, violating a requirement of STL containers.
Error:
cannot convert 'std::vector<bool>::reference* {aka std::_Bit_reference*}' to 'bool*' in initialization
vector<T>::operator [] return type is supposed to be T&, but why is it a special case for vector<bool>?
What does vector<bool> really consist of?
The Item further says:
deque<bool> v; // is a STL container and it really contains bools
Can this be used as an alternative to vector<bool>?
Can anyone please explain this?
For space-optimization reasons, the C++ standard (as far back as C++98) explicitly calls out vector<bool> as a special standard container where each bool uses only one bit of space rather than one byte as a normal bool would (implementing a kind of "dynamic bitset"). In exchange for this optimization it doesn't offer all the capabilities and interface of a normal standard container.
In this case, since you can't take the address of a bit within a byte, things such as operator[] can't return a bool& but instead return a proxy object that allows to manipulate the particular bit in question. Since this proxy object is not a bool&, you can't assign its address to a bool* like you could with the result of such an operator call on a "normal" container. In turn this means that bool *pb =&v[0]; isn't valid code.
On the other hand deque doesn't have any such specialization called out so each bool takes a byte and you can take the address of the value return from operator[].
Finally note that the MS standard library implementation is (arguably) suboptimal in that it uses a small chunk size for deques, which means that using deque as a substitute isn't always the right answer.
The problems is that vector<bool> returns a proxy reference object instead of a true reference, so that C++98 style code bool * p = &v[0]; won't compile. However, modern C++11 with auto p = &v[0]; can be made to compile if operator& also returns a proxy pointer object. Howard Hinnant has written a blog post detailing the algorithmic improvements when using such proxy references and pointers.
Scott Meyers has a long Item 30 in More Effective C++ about proxy classes. You can come a long way to almost mimic the builtin types: for any given type T, a pair of proxies (e.g. reference_proxy<T> and iterator_proxy<T>) can be made mutually consistent in the sense that reference_proxy<T>::operator&() and iterator_proxy<T>::operator*() are each other's inverse.
However, at some point one needs to map the proxy objects back to behave like T* or T&. For iterator proxies, one can overload operator->() and access the template T's interface without reimplementing all the functionality. However, for reference proxies, you would need to overload operator.(), and that is not allowed in current C++ (although Sebastian Redl presented such a proposal on BoostCon 2013). You can make a verbose work-around like a .get() member inside the reference proxy, or implement all of T's interface inside the reference (this is what is done for vector<bool>::bit_reference), but this will either lose the builtin syntax or introduce user-defined conversions that do not have builtin semantics for type conversions (you can have at most one user-defined conversion per argument).
TL;DR: no vector<bool> is not a container because the Standard requires a real reference, but it can be made to behave almost like a container, at least much closer with C++11 (auto) than in C++98.
vector<bool> contains boolean values in compressed form using only one bit for value (and not 8 how bool[] arrays do). It is not possible to return a reference to a bit in c++, so there is a special helper type, "bit reference", which provides you a interface to some bit in memory and allows you to use standard operators and casts.
Many consider the vector<bool> specialization to be a mistake.
In a paper "Deprecating Vestigial Library Parts in C++17"
There is a proposal to
Reconsider vector Partial Specialization.
There has been a long history of the bool partial specialization of
std::vector not satisfying the container requirements, and in
particular, its iterators not satisfying the requirements of a random
access iterator. A previous attempt to deprecate this container was
rejected for C++11, N2204.
One of the reasons for rejection is that it is not clear what it would
mean to deprecate a particular specialization of a template. That
could be addressed with careful wording. The larger issue is that the
(packed) specialization of vector offers an important
optimization that clients of the standard library genuinely seek, but
would not longer be available. It is unlikely that we would be able to
deprecate this part of the standard until a replacement facility is
proposed and accepted, such as N2050. Unfortunately, there are no such
revised proposals currently being offered to the Library Evolution
Working Group.
Look at how it is implemented. the STL builds vastly on templates and therefore the headers do contain the code they do.
for instance look at the stdc++ implementation here.
also interesting even though not an stl conforming bit vector is the llvm::BitVector from here.
the essence of the llvm::BitVector is a nested class called reference and suitable operator overloading to make the BitVector behaves similar to vector with some limitations. The code below is a simplified interface to show how BitVector hides a class called reference to make the real implementation almost behave like a real array of bool without using 1 byte for each value.
class BitVector {
public:
class reference {
reference &operator=(reference t);
reference& operator=(bool t);
operator bool() const;
};
reference operator[](unsigned Idx);
bool operator[](unsigned Idx) const;
};
this code here has the nice properties:
BitVector b(10, false); // size 10, default false
BitVector::reference &x = b[5]; // that's what really happens
bool y = b[5]; // implicitly converted to bool
assert(b[5] == false); // converted to bool
assert(b[6] == b[7]); // bool operator==(const reference &, const reference &);
b[5] = true; // assignment on reference
assert(b[5] == true); // and actually it does work.
This code actually has a flaw, try to run:
std::for_each(&b[5], &b[6], some_func); // address of reference not an iterator
will not work because assert( (&b[5] - &b[3]) == (5 - 3) ); will fail (within llvm::BitVector)
this is the very simple llvm version. std::vector<bool> has also working iterators in it.
thus the call for(auto i = b.begin(), e = b.end(); i != e; ++i) will work. and also std::vector<bool>::const_iterator.
However there are still limitations in std::vector<bool> that makes it behave differently in some cases.
This comes from http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector-bool/
Vector of bool This is a specialized version of vector, which is used
for elements of type bool and optimizes for space.
It behaves like the unspecialized version of vector, with the
following changes:
The storage is not necessarily an array of bool values, but the library implementation may optimize storage so that each value is
stored in a single bit.
Elements are not constructed using the allocator object, but their value is directly set on the proper bit in the internal storage.
Member function flip and a new signature for member swap.
A special member type, reference, a class that accesses individual bits in the container's internal storage with an interface that
emulates a bool reference. Conversely, member type const_reference is
a plain bool.
The pointer and iterator types used by the container are not necessarily neither pointers nor conforming iterators, although they
shall simulate most of their expected behavior.
These changes provide a quirky interface to this specialization and
favor memory optimization over processing (which may or may not suit
your needs). In any case, it is not possible to instantiate the
unspecialized template of vector for bool directly. Workarounds to
avoid this range from using a different type (char, unsigned char) or
container (like deque) to use wrapper types or further specialize for
specific allocator types.
bitset is a class that provides a similar functionality for fixed-size
arrays of bits.
cppreference says that the iterators for the vector<bool> specialization are implementation defined and many not support traits like ForwardIterator (and therefore RandomAccessIterator).
cplusplus adds a mysterious "most":
The pointer and iterator types used by the container are not
necessarily neither pointers nor conforming iterators, although they
shall simulate most of their expected behavior.
I don't have access to the official specification. Are there any iterator behaviors guaranteed for the vector<bool> iterators?
More concretely, how would one write standards-compliant code to insert an item in the middle of a vector<bool>? The following works on several compilers that I tried:
std::vector<bool> v(4);
int k = 2;
v.insert(v.begin() + k, true);
Will it always?
The fundamental problem with vector<bool>'s iterators is that they are not ForwardIterators. C++14 [forward.iterators]/1 requires that ForwardIterators' reference type be T& or const T&, as appropriate.
Any function which takes a forward iterator over a range of Ts is allowed to do this:
T &t = *it;
t = //Some value.
However, vector<bool>'s reference types are not bool&; they're a proxy object that is convertible to and assignable from a bool. They act like a bool, but they are not a bool. As such, this code is illegal:
bool &b = *it;
It would be attempting to get an lvalue reference to a temporary created from the proxy object. That's not allowed.
Therefore, you cannot use vector<bool>'s iterators in any function that takes ForwardIterators or higher.
However, your code doesn't necessarily have to care about that. As long as you control what code you pass those vector<bool> iterators to, and you don't do anything that violates how they behave, then you're fine.
As far as their interface is concerned, they act like RandomAccessIterators, except for when they don't (see above). So you can offset them with integers with constant time complexity and so forth.
vector<bool> is fine, so long as you don't treat it like a vector that contains bools. Your code will work because it uses vector<bool>'s own interface, which it obviously accepts.
It would not work if you passed a pair of vector<bool> iterators to std::sort.
C++14 [vector.bool]/2:
Unless described below, all operations have the same requirements and
semantics as the primary vector template, except that operations
dealing with the bool value type map to bit values in the container
storage and allocator_traits::construct (20.7.8.2) is not used to
construct these values.
Recently I was trying to fix a pretty difficult const-correctness compiler error. It initially manifested as a multi-paragraph template vomit error deep within Boost.Python.
But that's irrelevant: it all boiled down to the following fact: the C++11 std::begin and std::end iterator functions are not overloaded to take R-values.
The definition(s) of std::begin are:
template< class C >
auto begin( C& c ) -> decltype(c.begin());
template< class C >
auto begin( const C& c ) -> decltype(c.begin());
So since there is no R-value/Universal Reference overload, if you pass it an R-value you get a const iterator.
So why do I care? Well, if you ever have some kind of "range" container type, i.e. like a "view", "proxy" or a "slice" or some container type that presents a sub iterator range of another container, it is often very convenient to use R-value semantics and get non-const iterators from temporary slice/range objects. But with std::begin, you're out of luck because std::begin will always return a const-iterator for R-values. This is an old problem which C++03 programmers were often frustrated with back in the day before C++11 gave us R-values - i.e. the problem of temporaries always binding as const.
So, why isn't std::begin defined as:
template <class C>
auto begin(C&& c) -> decltype(c.begin());
This way, if c is constant we get a C::const_iterator and a C::iterator otherwise.
At first, I thought the reason was for safety. If you passed a temporary to std::begin, like so:
auto it = std::begin(std::string("temporary string")); // never do this
...you'd get an invalid iterator. But then I realized this problem still exists with the current implementation. The above code would simply return an invalid const-iterator, which would probably segfault when dereferenced.
So, why is std::begin not defined to take an R-value (or more accurately, a Universal Reference)? Why have two overloads (one for const and one for non-const)?
The above code would simply return an invalid const-iterator
Not quite. The iterator will be valid until the end of the full-expression that the temporary the iterator refers to was lexically created in. So something like
std::copy_n( std::begin(std::string("Hallo")), 2,
std::ostreambuf_iterator<char>(std::cout) );
is still valid code. Of course, in your example, it is invalidated at the end of the statement.
What point would there be in modifying a temporary or xvalue? That is probably one of the questions the designers of the range accessors had in mind when proposing the declarations. They didn't consider "proxy" ranges for which the iterators returned by .begin() and .end() are valid past its lifetime; Perhaps for the very reason that, in template code, they cannot be distinguished from normal ranges - and we certainly don't want to modify temporary non-proxy ranges, since that is pointless and might lead to confusion.
However, you don't need to use std::begin in the first place but could rather declare them with a using-declaration:
using std::begin;
using std::end;
and use ADL. This way you declare a namespace-scope begin and end overload for the types that Boost.Python (o.s.) uses and circumvent the restrictions of std::begin. E.g.
iterator begin(boost_slice&& s) { return s.begin(); }
iterator end (boost_slice&& s) { return s.end() ; }
// […]
begin(some_slice) // Calls the global overload, returns non-const iterator
Why have two overloads (one for const and one for non-const)?
Because we still want rvalues objects to be supported (and they cannot be taken by a function parameter of the form T&).
Item 18 of Scott Meyers's book Effective STL: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of the Standard Template Library says to avoid vector <bool> as it's not an STL container and it doesn't really hold bools.
The following code:
vector <bool> v;
bool *pb =&v[0];
will not compile, violating a requirement of STL containers.
Error:
cannot convert 'std::vector<bool>::reference* {aka std::_Bit_reference*}' to 'bool*' in initialization
vector<T>::operator [] return type is supposed to be T&, but why is it a special case for vector<bool>?
What does vector<bool> really consist of?
The Item further says:
deque<bool> v; // is a STL container and it really contains bools
Can this be used as an alternative to vector<bool>?
Can anyone please explain this?
For space-optimization reasons, the C++ standard (as far back as C++98) explicitly calls out vector<bool> as a special standard container where each bool uses only one bit of space rather than one byte as a normal bool would (implementing a kind of "dynamic bitset"). In exchange for this optimization it doesn't offer all the capabilities and interface of a normal standard container.
In this case, since you can't take the address of a bit within a byte, things such as operator[] can't return a bool& but instead return a proxy object that allows to manipulate the particular bit in question. Since this proxy object is not a bool&, you can't assign its address to a bool* like you could with the result of such an operator call on a "normal" container. In turn this means that bool *pb =&v[0]; isn't valid code.
On the other hand deque doesn't have any such specialization called out so each bool takes a byte and you can take the address of the value return from operator[].
Finally note that the MS standard library implementation is (arguably) suboptimal in that it uses a small chunk size for deques, which means that using deque as a substitute isn't always the right answer.
The problems is that vector<bool> returns a proxy reference object instead of a true reference, so that C++98 style code bool * p = &v[0]; won't compile. However, modern C++11 with auto p = &v[0]; can be made to compile if operator& also returns a proxy pointer object. Howard Hinnant has written a blog post detailing the algorithmic improvements when using such proxy references and pointers.
Scott Meyers has a long Item 30 in More Effective C++ about proxy classes. You can come a long way to almost mimic the builtin types: for any given type T, a pair of proxies (e.g. reference_proxy<T> and iterator_proxy<T>) can be made mutually consistent in the sense that reference_proxy<T>::operator&() and iterator_proxy<T>::operator*() are each other's inverse.
However, at some point one needs to map the proxy objects back to behave like T* or T&. For iterator proxies, one can overload operator->() and access the template T's interface without reimplementing all the functionality. However, for reference proxies, you would need to overload operator.(), and that is not allowed in current C++ (although Sebastian Redl presented such a proposal on BoostCon 2013). You can make a verbose work-around like a .get() member inside the reference proxy, or implement all of T's interface inside the reference (this is what is done for vector<bool>::bit_reference), but this will either lose the builtin syntax or introduce user-defined conversions that do not have builtin semantics for type conversions (you can have at most one user-defined conversion per argument).
TL;DR: no vector<bool> is not a container because the Standard requires a real reference, but it can be made to behave almost like a container, at least much closer with C++11 (auto) than in C++98.
vector<bool> contains boolean values in compressed form using only one bit for value (and not 8 how bool[] arrays do). It is not possible to return a reference to a bit in c++, so there is a special helper type, "bit reference", which provides you a interface to some bit in memory and allows you to use standard operators and casts.
Many consider the vector<bool> specialization to be a mistake.
In a paper "Deprecating Vestigial Library Parts in C++17"
There is a proposal to
Reconsider vector Partial Specialization.
There has been a long history of the bool partial specialization of
std::vector not satisfying the container requirements, and in
particular, its iterators not satisfying the requirements of a random
access iterator. A previous attempt to deprecate this container was
rejected for C++11, N2204.
One of the reasons for rejection is that it is not clear what it would
mean to deprecate a particular specialization of a template. That
could be addressed with careful wording. The larger issue is that the
(packed) specialization of vector offers an important
optimization that clients of the standard library genuinely seek, but
would not longer be available. It is unlikely that we would be able to
deprecate this part of the standard until a replacement facility is
proposed and accepted, such as N2050. Unfortunately, there are no such
revised proposals currently being offered to the Library Evolution
Working Group.
Look at how it is implemented. the STL builds vastly on templates and therefore the headers do contain the code they do.
for instance look at the stdc++ implementation here.
also interesting even though not an stl conforming bit vector is the llvm::BitVector from here.
the essence of the llvm::BitVector is a nested class called reference and suitable operator overloading to make the BitVector behaves similar to vector with some limitations. The code below is a simplified interface to show how BitVector hides a class called reference to make the real implementation almost behave like a real array of bool without using 1 byte for each value.
class BitVector {
public:
class reference {
reference &operator=(reference t);
reference& operator=(bool t);
operator bool() const;
};
reference operator[](unsigned Idx);
bool operator[](unsigned Idx) const;
};
this code here has the nice properties:
BitVector b(10, false); // size 10, default false
BitVector::reference &x = b[5]; // that's what really happens
bool y = b[5]; // implicitly converted to bool
assert(b[5] == false); // converted to bool
assert(b[6] == b[7]); // bool operator==(const reference &, const reference &);
b[5] = true; // assignment on reference
assert(b[5] == true); // and actually it does work.
This code actually has a flaw, try to run:
std::for_each(&b[5], &b[6], some_func); // address of reference not an iterator
will not work because assert( (&b[5] - &b[3]) == (5 - 3) ); will fail (within llvm::BitVector)
this is the very simple llvm version. std::vector<bool> has also working iterators in it.
thus the call for(auto i = b.begin(), e = b.end(); i != e; ++i) will work. and also std::vector<bool>::const_iterator.
However there are still limitations in std::vector<bool> that makes it behave differently in some cases.
This comes from http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector-bool/
Vector of bool This is a specialized version of vector, which is used
for elements of type bool and optimizes for space.
It behaves like the unspecialized version of vector, with the
following changes:
The storage is not necessarily an array of bool values, but the library implementation may optimize storage so that each value is
stored in a single bit.
Elements are not constructed using the allocator object, but their value is directly set on the proper bit in the internal storage.
Member function flip and a new signature for member swap.
A special member type, reference, a class that accesses individual bits in the container's internal storage with an interface that
emulates a bool reference. Conversely, member type const_reference is
a plain bool.
The pointer and iterator types used by the container are not necessarily neither pointers nor conforming iterators, although they
shall simulate most of their expected behavior.
These changes provide a quirky interface to this specialization and
favor memory optimization over processing (which may or may not suit
your needs). In any case, it is not possible to instantiate the
unspecialized template of vector for bool directly. Workarounds to
avoid this range from using a different type (char, unsigned char) or
container (like deque) to use wrapper types or further specialize for
specific allocator types.
bitset is a class that provides a similar functionality for fixed-size
arrays of bits.