December 2017 - Boost - lists.boost.org

[release] 1.66.0 closing for release on Wednesday
by Daniel James 02 Dec '17

02 Dec '17

There's still a little time for any remaining bug fixes, documentation updates and release notes. Schedule: 6 Dec - Closed for all changes, except by permission of a release manager 9 Dec - Closed for all changes 13 Dec - Boost 1.66.0 release You can edit the release notes here: https://github.com/boostorg/website/blob/master/feed/history/boost_1_66_0.q…

5 13

[contract] move operations and class invariants
by Lorenzo Caminiti 01 Dec '17

01 Dec '17

Hello all, This is not really a question about Boost.Contract, but more a question on how contract programming interacts with C++ move operations. C++ requires that moved-from objects can still be destructed. Because contract programming requires class invariants to hold at destructor entry, it follows that moved-from objects must still satisfy class invariants. That sounds restrictive... and it might force the class invariants to be empty. For example, for vector a class invariant is size() <= capacity(). Should that sill hold after the vector has been moved? That means I can still call size() and capacity() on a moved-from object, which might not be the case. If some sort of moved() function could be called on a moved-from object, the invariants could be programmed as follow to work around this issue: class vector { void invariant() cont { if(!moved()) BOOST_CONTRACT_ASSERT(size() <= capacity()); ... // Only invariants that are truly needed to execute the destructor. } bool moved() const; public: vector(vector&& other) { boost::contract::check c = boost::contract::constructor(this) .postcondition([&] { BOOST_CONTRACT_ASSERT(!moved()); BOOST_CONTRACT_ASSERT(other.moved()); }) ; ... } ... }; I'm not really sure... What do you think? Do you know if this topic "C++ move & class invariants" has already been discussed somewhere? Thanks. --Lorenzo

6 11

Re: [boost] [contract] move operations and class invariants
by Peter Dimov 01 Dec '17

01 Dec '17

Lorenzo Caminiti wrote: > > read() can fail, so you can drop its "valid" precondition and just fail > > when the handle is invalid. > > Calling read() on a moved-from object so violating its is_valid() > precondition is a bug, not a run-time error while reading the file. The > precondition legitimately remains in place to catch bugs, even after it is > noted that read() can fail because of file-system or other run-time > errors. On one hand, you want to have a precondition. On the other, you say that if you have the precondition, the class would be crippled and not very useful: >> 2. How useful is a class like the one above with "crippled" invariants >> and is_valid() preconditions on all its useful public methods like >> read()? The answer seems to be: not very useful. These are contradictory. Either the class that has preconditions is crippled and not very useful, in which case we drop the preconditions as I suggest; or it's useful, in which case we keep them.

1 0