From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-10 00:53:38
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Anyway, about the rvalue_wrapper<> Shunsuke proposed and I just
>> endorsed. The issue is that today, users are writing code like this:
>> int const i = 0;
>> fusion::tuple<int> t = fusion::make_tuple(i);
>> This is arguably wrong because it is storing an lvalue by value. This is
>> probably more correct:
>> int const i = 0;
>> fusion::tuple<int const &> t = fusion::make_tuple(i);
> It seems to depend on context or domain.
> Proto may expect it, but
> int const i = 0;
> return fusion::make_tuple(i);
> would be "ouch".
I don't buy that argument, because to return a tuple, you need to state
the return type. If you say the return type is:
tuple<int const &>
result_of<make_tuple(int const &)>::type
... and you return a tuple containing a reference to a local variable,
you get what you asked for: a lot of pain. That's no worse than
declaring a function to return an "int const &" and returning a
reference to a local.
It's not even a problem with the new function declarator syntax in C++0x:
auto foo() -> decltype(make_tuple(???))
This can't be made to return a reference to a local variable because no
local variables are in scope.
> BTW, Egg offers "pack", which captures all the arguments by-reference.
>> In C++0x, it will be very easy to get this more correct behavior. Will
>> we change our functions (and function objects) then? Even if it breaks
>> users' code?
>> The alternative is to assume that T const & really means lvalue. And
>> when you pass an rvalue you do it like this:
>> fusion::tuple<int> t = fusion::make_tuple(rvalue(1));
>> But then we have to live with this nightmare until C++0x arrives:
>> // ouch!
>> fusion::tuple<int const &> t = fusion::make_tuple(1);
>> Yikes. Now I'm not sure. Safety or forward compatibility? Looks like we
>> can't have them both.
> As shown above, lvalue/rvalue-ness doesn't guarantee the complete safety.
I think your argument is specious.
> FWIW, I usually prefer compatibility. :-)
I honestly don't know what the right answer is. I'd like more people to
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting 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