Re: [boost] [ Interest? ] [ out_ptr ] Tiny C++ Abstraction for C-Style Output Pointers

Subject: Re: [boost] [ Interest? ] [ out_ptr ] Tiny C++ Abstraction for C-Style Output Pointers
From: JeanHeyd Meneide (phdofthehouse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-13 00:05:38

Dear Boost Community,

     I wanted to follow-up on this library interest. Because interoperation
with `boost::move::unique_ptr` would need some coordination, it was
suggested I put this underneath the boost::move library. I have opened an
issue to gather the feeling of the maintainer about such a move (heh!):
https://github.com/boostorg/move/issues/22

     I'll be doing my best to make this available to boost or the open
source community in some fashion.

Sincerely,
JeanHeyd Meneide

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:29 AM ThePhD <phdofthehouse_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Dear Gavin,
>
>      I think the solution for that is moreso what Jonathan Müller is
> proposing with his type_safe library. There's a ts::output_parameter type
> in there that makes your API extremely explicit. Again, this isn't really
> supposed to affect the callee: only the caller side of things. I don't
> think `out_ptr` can be shifted over to handle that responsibility without
> getting very, very far off track.
>
>     Maybe `smart_out_ptr` and `smart_inout_ptr`/ (or replace 'smart' with
> 'fancy') might make the intention more clear, at the cost of being more
> verbose. 'c_inout_ptr' and 'c_out_ptr` are more cromulent, and generally
> capture what this API ends up being used for (C and COM-style APIs). My
> original implementation used `ptrptr` and `in_ptrptr`, as in "pointer to
> pointer", but I'm not sure anyone liked that name very much except for
> me...!
>
>      Of course, the other authors in the official standards proposal
> proposed things like `out_ptr` and `inout_ptr`, as well as `c_ptr` and
> `c_in_ptr`. We went with `out_ptr` and `inout_ptr`.
>
> Sincerely,
> JeanHeyd
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/07/2018 13:48, ThePhD wrote:
>>
>>>       I am not sure whether this provides much more benefit than just
>>> passing the smart pointer itself: the `some_function` already sticks
>>> `SmartPtr` in its signature (so you might as well just pass the SmartPtr
>>> itself, since you've already nailed the smart pointer to the signature).
>>>
>>
>> The benefit is, as I said, in making it obvious at the call-site that the
>> pointer can be modified.  The alternative is:
>>
>> Caller:
>>   SmartPtr my_smart_ptr;
>>   auto r = some_function(foo, bar, /*out*/ my_smart_ptr);
>>
>> Callee:
>>   bool some_function(int foo, int bar, SmartPtr& local_smart_ptr);
>>
>> Where obviously the comment is trying to be an annotation, but as it's
>> just a comment it has no real effect and is easily forgotten and then there
>> is no evidence at all (at the call site) that my_smart_ptr can be modified
>> by the call.
>>
>> It's not really a pointer-specific issue, it's just a flaw in C++'s
>> reference-passing syntax in general.  Some other languages handle this
>> better by being more explicit about the purpose of a reference parameter.
>>
>> So it would be nice if there were a way to have a compiler-enforced
>> annotation, as long as it doesn't have negative performance impact.
>>
>> As I said, this is not really in-scope for what you're trying to do with
>> your library, but it's a related problem space and it would be nice if one
>> solution could solve both problems uniformly.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>
>
>