I suppose there is no hope to get people write simple code? :-)
-------- Original message --------From: Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]> Date: 3/13/2016 8:47 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Agustín Bergé <agustinberge_at_[hidden]> Cc: "features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])" <features_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [SG10] P0304: constexpr addressof
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Agustín Bergé <agustinberge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 3/13/2016 10:16 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Krügler
>> <daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2016-03-11 20:27 GMT+01:00 Agustín Bergé <agustinberge_at_[hidden]>:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/11/2016 4:14 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agustin raised the question of whether there should be a macro to
>>>>> indicate the presence of the fix for LWG2296. I made a couple of
>>>>> replies suggesting that, to me, the answer is not obviously "yes".
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, no one (not even Agustin) has made any further comment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I said that if there's no macro I'd prefer to leave the code broken.
>>>> That should have implied my motivation is weak. I think a macro fits the
>>>> bill, but if lacks in popularity I'm not going to push for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I tentatively agree, I see no need for a feature macro here.
>>
>>
>> I can imagine a macro being useful:
>>
>> struct optional {
>> bool b;
>> T t;
>> constexpr T *get() {
>> return b ?
>> #if __cpp_constexpr_addressof
>> std::addressof(t)
>> #else
>> &t
>> #endif
>> : nullptr;
>> }
>> };
>
>
> That's my use case :)
>
>> The idea here is that it's more important that get() is constexpr than
>> that it works if there's an overloaded operator&, so addressof is only
>> used if it would actually work in a constant expression. Achieving
>> this result with SFINAE seems difficult.
>
>
> This appears to do the trick, but there's a chance that it is ill-formed:
>
> #if 0
> using std::addressof;
> #else
> template <typename T>
> constexpr T* addressof(T& v) { return &v; }
> #endif
>
> struct is_addressof_constexpr {
> static int _probe;
>
> template <typename T, T* = addressof(_probe)>

If you use "std::addressof" instead of "addressof", I think this
default template argument has no valid instantiations in C++14, so is
ill-formed (no diagnostic required). If you don't qualify it, it can
find the wrong addressof via ADL.

> static std::true_type check(T);
>
> static std::false_type check(...);
>
> static constexpr bool value =
> decltype(check(0))::value;
> };
>
> static_assert(is_addressof_constexpr::value, "");
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Agustín K-ballo Bergé
> http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com
_______________________________________________
Features mailing list
Features_at_[hidden]
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features