C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Meta types
From: Jake Arkinstall (jake.arkinstall_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-04 10:18:37

The '14 version you have provided is exactly what my proposal generates,
but without the indirection. Much of my code involves exactly this pattern,
stitched together with a pipeline builder struct, cringy use of the >>
operator and helper macros for yield, etc. It suffices, but it's crying out
for either a new language, a preprocessor, or a new language feature.

You'll also note that debugging through the callback approach is nothing
less than horrific, especially if any pipeline building code is involved
(just like with variants). I can't imagine this changing while the code
being written is in the form of callbacks.

The reason is that given N components of the pipeline (each yielding a new
value to be passed to the next), an unhandled type from component N-1 to
component N bubbles an error generating from the first call to component 0.
Deciphering the message that comes out is fun, to say the least, and while
static_assert is unable to add typenames etc there's no real way around it.

As a language feature, it's easy. The compiler is aware of what you're
trying to do, and can provide useful information when you get it wrong.

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, 15:16 Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:16 AM Михаил Найденов via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> This definitely steps into both "language variant" and Pattern Matching
>> territory.
>> I am not sure what optimization we can expect from "language variant",
>> but PM should give us close to your ideal code
>> void main(int argc, char const* const* argv){
>> inspect(halve(args))
>> Numeric x => std::cout << "You passed 2*(" << x << ") arguments\n";
>> return 0;
>> }
> The current Pattern Matching proposal doesn't give the programmer any way
> to write `halve` so that it can actually return either of two alternative
> types (`unsigned` or `double`) depending on a *runtime* condition (the
> evenness of the runtime argument).
> However, I don't see anything wrong with the existing C++14 language
> solution to OP's problem. It's not worth pursuing any crazy core-language
> gymnastics unless you can provide a use-case that isn't already solvable
> idiomatically in C++14 (17, 20). Here's the '14 solution:
> template<class F>
> void halve(unsigned i, const F& f) {
> if (i % 2 == 0) {
> f(i / 2);
> } else {
> f(i * 0.5);
> }
> }
> int main(int argc, char**) {
> halve(argc, [](auto x) {
> std::cout << "You passed 2*(" << x << ") arguments\n";
> });
> return 0;
> }
> Short, readable, relatively easy to understand. Certainly easi*er* to
> understand than anything proposed in the OP.
> –Arthur
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals

STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com

Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups