Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure]any(const binding<Concept>&, ...) compile error
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-28 11:25:01
On 07/27/12 14:27, Steven Watanabe wrote:
> On 07/27/2012 11:54 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
>> On 07/27/12 13:08, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>> You're passing an argument of type ph_value<_a>.
>>> How would constructible<_a(const _a&)> (which
>>> is the copy constructor) be viable?
>> Because, when _a in constructible<_a(const _a&)> is replaced by the
>> binding, it becomes, IIUC,
>> constructible<ph_value<_a>(const ph_value<_a>&)>
> This substitution happens in the dispatching layer.
> In the interface of any, constructible<_a(const _a&)>
> defines the constructor:
> any<C, _a>::any(any<C, const _a&>);
> It can't possibly define
> any<C, _a>::any(const ph_value<_a>&);
> because it doesn't know about ph_value<_a>.
Why doesn't it know about ph_value<_a>? It's the contained type
corresponding to _a, and that must be available somewhere in the
binding<Concept> arg ; otherwise, it couldn't create the a_dup
even when the constructible is:
>> and this is the same as the compiling version of binding_of.cpp.
>> I thought this replacement is what would happen based on the example:
>> constructible<_a(const _b&, const _c&)>
>> Why is the replacement done in the construction.html example and not
>> in bindings_of.cpp? Hmmm... Ok, the example has any args, from which
>> the bindings<ConceptA> can be gotten. But those same bindings are
>> available from the binding<ConceptA> arg in bindings_of.cpp creation
>> of a_dup.
>> Obviously I'm still missing something, but I've no clue what :(
> The library deals with either any's or
> with the contained types, but not both,
> depending on what layer you're looking at.
> You're trying to mix the two.
Initially, that made no sense to me. Then, after further
experimentation with the attached, where I used every combination of
the defined or undefined for macros:
I finally realized that a placeholder in a concept does not stand for
the contained type, instead it stands for a type_erasure::any of the
contained type. If that's right, I can't remember seeing that
anywhere in the docs. However, looking again at the examples:
that seems to fit.
Now the doc here:
When a concept is instantiated with a specific set of type bindings,
each placeholder is bound to a cv-unqualified non-reference type
but it doesn't say the non-reference type must be an any.
Also, the doc here:
Placeholders act as a substitute for template parameters in
concepts. The library automatically replaces all the placeholders
used in a concept with the actual types involved when it stores an
object in an any.
but it doesn't say the actual type must be a type_erasure::any of some
sort. I thought (quit understandably, IMO) the actual type could be
the one specified by mpl::at<Map,Tag>::type where Map is the one used
To help avoid future confusion, I suggest the docs make very clear
that the placeholder's in the concepts stand for a type_erasure::any
of some sort. Also, the doc:
Concept must contain a matching instance of constructible.
but no definition of "matching". So, again, to help avoid future
confusion, please provide a definition of "matching" (maybe in a
matching.html file, with a link to that file) which emphasizes that a
placeholder does stand for a type_erasure::any and *not* for the
contained type corresponding to the placeholder.
I'm apologize to take up so much of your time and I appreciate your
patience in helping me understand type_erasure.