Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #82995

Re: C++20 concepts rocks

From James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: C++20 concepts rocks
Date 2022-02-13 14:12 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <subl6c$su9$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <stll5s$ao6$1@dont-email.me> <stls0p$jhf$1@dont-email.me> <35c223d5-0f11-4368-89d7-de986d7f5294n@googlegroups.com> <su9t9s$ig2$1@dont-email.me> <subhtm$42r$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/13/22 13:16, Paavo Helde wrote:
> 13.02.2022 05:18 James Kuyper kirjutas:
...
>> "The unary & operator yields the address of its operand. ... If the
>> operand is the result of a unary * operator, neither that operator nor
>> the & operator is evaluated and the result is as if both were omitted,
>> except that the constraints on the operators still apply and the result
>> is not an lvalue." (6.5.3.2p3).
>>
>> Because of that clause, if there's no problem an expression E that has a
>> pointer type, and if &*E violates no constraints, then there's also no
>> problem with &*E, which has the same value, even if *E would have had
>> undefined behavior (for instance, if the value of E is a null pointer or
>> (as in this case) points one past the end of an array.
>>
>> I don't know why the C++ committee never choose to add similar wording
>> to the C++ standard.
>
> One reason might be that this wording would prohibit debugging
> implementations of operator[] which check its arguments and fail if it
> is >=N.
>
> Such an instrumented operator[] would not have a way to know if its
> result is immediately passed to the & operator or not, so it cannot
> take this into an account. For a compiler implementer it would be
> easier to take into account, so e.g. the gcc bounds-checking regime
> would still be possible to implement, but an ordinary user-defined
> bounds-checking operator[] would not be possible.
>
> So I would say the difference of C and C++ in this aspect is because
> in C++ one can redefine operator[], but not in C.

"... Overloaded operators obey the rules for syntax and evaluation order
specified in 7.6, but the requirements of operand type and value
category are replaced by the rules for function call. Relations between
operators, such as ++a meaning a+=1, are not guaranteed for overloaded
operators" (7.1p2)
"Subclause 7.6 defines the effects of operators when applied to types
for which they have not been overloaded." (7.1p3).

For example, 7.6.1.1p3 specifies that "E1[E2] is identical (by
definition) to *((E1)+(E2))", a specification that doesn't apply if
operator[](), operator*(), or operator+() is overloaded for any of the
relevant types.

Why would inserting a rule into section 7.6.2.1, saying that &*(E) is
equivalent to E, be any more problematic than the rule that a++ means
a+=1, or that E1[E2] == *(E1 + E2)?

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 13:54 +0100
  Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-04 14:25 +0000
    Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 15:31 +0100
      Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-04 14:54 +0000
        Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 17:41 +0100
          Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-05 11:31 +0000
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 12:49 +0100
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-05 12:20 +0000
      Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-04 16:15 +0000
        Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 17:43 +0100
        Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 01:51 +0100
          Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-05 01:59 +0000
          Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-04 23:05 -0500
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:56 +0100
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-05 13:53 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 14:12 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:13 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-12 22:18 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-02-13 12:51 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-02-13 20:16 +0200
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-13 14:12 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-02-13 16:22 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-13 17:18 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-02-14 00:51 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-14 08:29 -0800
          Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-04 23:37 -0800
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:58 +0100
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 02:16 -0800
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-05 12:35 -0800
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 05:54 -0800
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-02-06 19:43 +0100
        Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-04 23:53 -0800
          Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-05 10:10 -0800
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:51 +0100
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-05 16:42 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-06 01:39 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-05 18:02 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 09:57 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:57 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 12:40 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-02-06 03:53 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-06 14:35 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 11:20 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-06 21:53 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 19:03 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-07 11:50 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 06:26 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-07 15:48 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 12:16 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 22:27 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-09 21:43 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-09 21:07 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-09 21:25 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-10 13:05 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-10 11:19 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-11 05:41 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 17:06 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-11 11:50 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 21:13 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-02-11 17:06 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-15 00:10 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 20:58 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-16 06:40 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 09:54 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-16 09:00 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 20:25 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-17 08:53 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-02-17 16:11 +0200
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-17 10:58 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-17 07:32 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-19 02:21 -0700
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 11:56 +0200
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-25 03:02 -0700
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-12 00:01 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-14 23:55 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 18:31 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-02-07 17:43 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-06 14:25 -0500
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 02:01 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-06 19:37 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 10:18 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-02-07 11:32 +0200
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-07 07:55 -0800
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 02:11 -0800
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 13:13 +0100
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 04:58 -0800
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 14:08 +0100
        Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 12:48 +0100
    Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-04 20:15 +0000
      Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-05 11:32 +0000
        Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-06 08:28 +0000
          Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-07 09:52 +0000
            Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-08 07:05 +0000
              Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-08 09:25 +0000
                Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-08 10:09 +0000
  Re: C++20 concepts rocks Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-02-04 12:10 -0800
    Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 13:41 +0100
      Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:28 -0800
  A little benchmark: Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 13:22 +0100
    A better benchmark Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 14:56 +0100
      A improved routine Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:19 +0100
      Re: A better benchmark Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 06:57 -0800
        Re: A better benchmark Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 18:30 +0100

csiph-web