|
Boost : |
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-23 07:06:48
David Abrahams wrote:
>> Okay. BTW, what guarantees that ++r does not invalidate any copies for
>> forward/bidirectional/random iterator?
>
> None, I think.
Hmm... then shouldn't it be guaranteed somehow?
>>> Really you mean requirements on the expression "*r++", I think.
>>
>> No, on operator++(int)
>
> What requirements do you mean, specifically?
The
{
X tmp = r;
++r;
return tmp;
}
requirement I quote below.
>>> ...then what?
>
> No answer? You started a phrase with if (condition) but there was no
> "body", if you will.
Ah, understand. The "body" was
The result of r++ is not required even to be dereferencable
It only lacked "then".
>>>> 1) require that ++r does not makes any copies dereferencable, or
>>>
>>> I think you mean "not require that any copies are dereferencable after
>>> "++r"?
>>
>> Nope, I meant what written. If ++r is required to keep the copies
>> deferencable
>
> That's the opposite of what you wrote. "does not makes any copies
> dereferencable" means, "doesn't change any copies of r from
> non-dereferenceable to dereferenceable."
Oops, sorry for confusion, I've got lost in 'de-' and 'non-' prefixes.
>> then *r++ will be guaranteed to work. OTOH, this would require
>> storing value in iterator which as you say is not indented by current
>> input_iterator.
>
> Yes, and it mean that not all readable single-pass iterators are input
> iterators, so I'm against it.
What input iterators requirements will be violated?
>>>> 2) allow returning proxy from operator++(int)
>>>
>>> That doesn't allow all readable single-pass iterators to be input
>>> iterators. I'm against it.
>>
>> It's possible to require that return value from operator++(int) is
>> some type with operator* and applicatqion of operator* returns the
>> same value as the *it before incrementing.
>
> Ah, whoops. OK, that solution is compatible with input iterator and
> output iterator, so I favor it.
Great.
>>>> 3) require that result of r++ is dereferencable and is equivivalent to
>>>> the dereferencing of the previous value of 'r'.
>
> Well, that requirement is equivalent to input iterator's requirement
> on "*r++".
In fact (3) is a bit stronger:
iterator copy = it++;
value_type v = *copy;
is required to work by it, while standard input iterators are required to
support *r++ as a single lexical expression.
> The question is, in which concept does that requirement
> go? It's neither a pure access nor a pure traversal concept.
And this requirements does not make sense for writable iterators... maybe it
can be documented in single_pass iterator, like:
if iterator is also a model of the readable iterator concept, then
expression *rv, where rv is the return value should be equal to the
previous value of iterator.
The requirements for forward_iterator can specify that operator++ does not
invalidate any copies of the iterator and does not change the value
returned from operator*() of copies. So, for forward iterator the above
clause is not necessary.
>
>>> I think we need want 1&3.
>
> Now 2&3.
>
>> Will 3) require extra storage in iterator?
>
> Not if accompanied by 2.
That's right.
>> Now, transform_iterator can store only wrapped iterator and a
>> functor. If 3) is required it should additionally store either
>> value, or a flag telling there's a undereferenced copy (as you've
>> suggested).
>
> I don't think the flag will work, actually, because of this
> requirement on input iterator:
>
> operation semantics
> --------- -----------------------
> (void)r++ equivalent to (void)++r
Isn't this "equivalent" means "in observable behaviour"? If so, it doesn't
matter if r++ get new item immediately or sets a flag. By the time you
derefence iterator, there's new value and user has no way to detect that
some flag is used.
>>> > The variant 2) would be most convenient for directory_iterator...
>>
>>> Yeah, but it would break interoperability with old algorithms.
>>
>> Why? Input iterator requirements only say that *r++ should return T. They
>> don't say anything about type of r++.
>
> You're right. It's 2&3.
That's great. Does it mean I can go and enable proxy in directory_iterator?
Or, maybe, it's better be addressed in the iterator_facade? Say, so that
proxy is always used for readable single-pass iterators? I guess if
iterator stores a value inside, it can always to lvalue iterator, so always
using proxy for readable iterators seems OK.
- Volodya
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk