From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-23 08:41:44
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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?
Well, I may have been wrong. The forward iterator requirements say:
expression operational semantics assertion
---------- --------------------- ---------
++r r == s and r is dereferenceable
implies ++r == ++s .
X u(a); X u; u = a; post: u == a .
>>>> Really you mean requirements on the expression "*r++", I think.
>>> No, on operator++(int)
>> What requirements do you mean, specifically?
> X tmp = 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
>>> Nope, I meant what written. If ++r is required to keep the copies
>> 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
>> 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?
Sorry, I got it backwards. Not all input iterators will be readable
single-pass iterators. Either way, it creates a problem I think.
>>>>> 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.
In that case, I don't want to ask for what you intend by 3, because
it means not all input iterators will be readable single-pass
>> 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.
I don't understand it, but I think something along those lines will be
needed. We can probably use the "pre:" construct as shown in
> 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.
Huh? I can't change the forward iterator requirements.
>>> 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
>> 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.
Ah, right. The flag is set in the iterator that got postincremented,
not the copy that was returned by the postincrement.
>>>> > 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.
Well, but we weren't on the same page about the meaning of 3.
> Does it mean I can go and enable proxy in directory_iterator?
Well sure, I think that was always legal.
> Or, maybe, it's better be addressed in the iterator_facade?
Yes, IMO, but I am wondering how it should be done?
> 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.
Maybe it'd be best to use a proxy only for non-lvalue iterators?
Thanks for your attention to this; it makes a big difference!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk