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 17:18 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<suc03g$bn8$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <35c223d5-0f11-4368-89d7-de986d7f5294n@googlegroups.com> <su9t9s$ig2$1@dont-email.me> <subhtm$42r$1@dont-email.me> <subl6c$su9$1@dont-email.me> <IEeOJ.8296$WZCa.833@fx08.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/13/22 16:22, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/13/22 2:12 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> 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)?
>>
>
> Except that rule says that the compiler CAN'T assume that either a++
> is equivalent to a += 1 or that E1[E2] means the same as *(E1 + E2),
> which 

Yes, when operator overloads come into play (and the compiler
necessarily knows when that is the case), it also knows that it can't
assume a++ means a+=1, E1[E2] means *(E1+E2), and I'm suggesting that it
could also not assume that &*(E) can be replaced by E.

When operator overloads don't come into play, it works the other way
around. A developer who knows that overloads are not involved can be
absolutely certain that implementation must treat a++ as meanin a+=1,
and E1[E2] as meanin *(E1+E2), and I'm suggesting that he should also be
absolutely certain that the implementation must treat &*(E) as
equivalent to E.

I don't see why borrowing this rule from C would be any more problematic
than the other two rules (also borrowed from C).

> means that the concept that &* cancelation might not be actually
> applicable.
>
> I suspect that there are ways of using 'proxy objects' as the results
> of a user defined operator*() that would allow you to implement that
> sort of rule, maybe even at minimal or no actual run-time cost, but it
> is not the most straight forward way (or the only way) to implement
> operator*() and thus the &* cancelation is NOT a promise by the Standard.

Sure - and in precisely those circumstances, as specified by 7.1p3, the
new rule (which would belong in 7.6.2.1, and therefore within the scope
of applicability of 7.1p3), would not apply, any more than a++ means
a+=1 or E1[E2] means *(E1+E2). When operator overloads allow proxy
objects to come in play, all three of those requirements get thrown out
the window.fhyt

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