Subject: Re: Making the new expression smart
From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-18 07:00:23
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 14:27, Richard Hodges via Std-Discussion
>> Interesting consistency, considering that &bar means address of bar
>> everywhere else, but reference to bar
>> in lambda captures.
> & means "reference to" in argument declarations, method declarations, lambda captures and structured bindings.
But not in any other variable declarations like the tuple examples you
posted, except for variables involving lambdas.
> As for the confusion due to the use of & to also mean "address of", I would have to refer you to Mssrs Stroustrup, Kernighan, Ritchie et.al. for a rationale. I confess it was before my time. I've only been writing C++ since '98.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I've only been
writing C++ since '94. So what?
>> > Performance:
>> > Expression through library templates means two levels of translation of intent. One from user intent to expression in terms of existing library code and (sparse) core language features. There is plenty of opportunity for missing concepts in the language to limit the quality of that translation.
>> > On the other hand, a keyword with code generation behind it means that a usersâ specific intent can be translated into optimal code every time. Furthermore, as compiler technology improves, that translation can be improved, improving every program upon recompilation.
>> > Of course this is partially true of libraries, but the library still suffers from not having access to direct code generation with knowledge of the absolute intent of the programmer.
>> I don't quite see what the "plenty of opportunity for missing concepts
>> in the language" might be, and how
>> make_unique leads into any less-optimized code than writing the same
>> with operators and sigils does.
> I was under the impression that you were asking about my general rationale for preferring the creation of keywords to describe common concepts in the language rather than library types. It might be that I misunderstood. If you did mean what I thought you meant, then focusing on specific operations where there is no specific performance benefit immediately obvious today would seem to be to be confrontational. I will put it down to a misunderstanding.
Well, you expressed a general preference that I thought applies to
make_unique as opposed to a hypothetical new (unique).
I point out that I don't see how some reasons for that general
preference apply to make_unique. If you find that confrontational,
that's not my problem.
>> Things like tuple and make_unique don't rely on intrinsics. Wrt. "why
>> bother with the complication of a library?", why bother
>> with the complication of every compiler?
> Again, std::tuple may or may not rely on intrinsics today, that is not the point. We know that a growing number of library constructs do.
We do? Do you have examples?
> Why bother the compiler writer? Because compilers are few and programmers are many, so embedding best practice into the implementation of the compiler seems to me to provide best bang for buck in terms of disseminating excellence when transforming human intent into machine instructions. In addition, the compiler has the best possible view of the situation and is therefore the most informed agent in the compilation chain.
I find it rather vague how "the compiler has the best possible view of
the situation" when it has exactly the same view
through library code in a library template.
> A few years ago, I remember that there were laments about it being "impossible to implement std::vector with compliant code". One answer to that (the approach taken) is to supply library tools (backed by compiler intrinsics in the case of clang I believe). Another is to simply accept that vector is so useful and necessary a noun that it ought to be part of the language.
The reason for supplying the library tools is that the problem wasn't
vector-specific, it was more general than that,
including problems with how std::allocator allocates a buffer for any
> I appreciate that positions such as this have a tendency to ignite religious wars in the C++ community. You don't have to agree, but if you are going to engage with me I would ask that you consider the entirety of what I write, and understand that it is written in good faith.
I fail to see what your complaint here is.
STD-DISCUSSION list run by email@example.com
Older Archives on Google Groups