Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-29 12:25:11
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 1/29/13 1:40 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> >>> I am also
> >>> >not convinced that drawing from objects with "singular" values is
> >>> >regardless if it's a pointer or not. I think it is you who's missing
> >>> >the point because Iterators are likewise*not* pointers.
> >> Okay, so replace "recursive_wrappers are not pointers" with
> >> "recursive_wrappers are not iterators". How does it make it any
> >> different? A singular value still doesn't fit in.
> > The point is that iterators can have singular values. If iterators
> > can have them, why can't any other object (have them)?
> Why should any other object have them? Iterators are a generalization
> of pointers and that's where they inherit their singular state from.
> This has absolutely nothing to do with move-semantics, and that's
> exactly why I say that such inferences, just like the NaN example, are
> dangerously superficial. A moved-from iterator isn't singular just
> like a default-constructed recursive_wrapper isn't. Different concepts
> - different issues. The point I'm trying to make is that conceptually
> recursive_wrappers don't have a value of their own. They have exactly
> the same set of states as their underlying type. If this type has a
> singular value, then and only then does a recursive wrapper around
> this type has a singular value.
> > IMO, ultimately,
> > it's a matter of design. You may not agree with a recursive_wrapper
> > being in a "singular" state after move, but that's just your preference.
> Okay, I'm not sure what exactly we are disagreeing about anymore.
> Do we agree that the move semantics we have in C++ are non-destructive
> (I'm not asking whether you like it or not. At this point it's a fact
> - not a preference)? If you agree with that, then you should
> appreciate that it's like that for a reason, whether or not you agree
> with that reason.
> A moved-from object should remain in a valid state. You're suggesting
> meeting this requirement by introducing a new (and yes, breaking)
> state, let's bluntly call it the "invalid" state, and you don't see
> what I'm talking about when I say that this is just missing the point?
> Then there's really nothing more I can say...
> > IMO, it's necessary for proxy-like objects that own and hold their
> > subjects by pointer. It's not quite elegant, sure, but C++ is never
> > elegant in many respects for the sake of high performance. I'd trade
> > this quirk for the sake of efficiency any day.
> That's a rant about how move semantics in C++ turned out (completely
> intentionally) to be. This discussion isn't about that, it's about how
> recursive_wrapper should behave under these semantics.
This discussion might be facilitated if Joel et al (sorry Joel, I don't
mean to pick on you, I just mean the group arguing for introducing this
"singular" post-move state) simply said "yes, we understand we're making a
breaking change (by possibly introducing an additional state to variant
that violates the never-empty guarantee), but we still think it's the most
practical approach to introduce efficient move semantics to variant". I can
jive with that but I think Paul's concerned that you (again, as a
representative of the platform you're taking) don't appreciate that this is
a breaking change to variant.
Maybe I've inferred each of your respective positions incorrectly, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk