On 07/08/18 14:47 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 02/08/18 22:16 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a patch to avoid definition of invalid operators on the
Debug mode safe iterator type depending on its category.
Even if it is limited to the Debug mode code I would like to
have a feedback before committing. Especially on the following
points:
- _Safe_tagged_iterator: Is the name ok ?
Hmm, maybe "strict" instead of tagged?
But do we need a new name? Can we just change _Safe_iterator instead
of adding a new type?
Where is _Safe_iterator still used? Just local iterators in unordered
containers? Is it OK to remove most of the functions that used to
support it? (__niter_base etc).
Could we add a new type for the local iterators, and just change
_Safe_iterator directly so it doesn't expose unsupported operations?
That would make the patch *much* smaller, as you wouldn't need to
change all the uses of _Safe_iterator.
Another approach would be to use mixins to expose the operations:
template<typename _Iter, typename _Cat>
struct _Safe_iterator_mixin<_Iter, _Cat>
{
typename iterator_traits<_Iter>::reference
operator*()
{ return static_cast<_Iter*>(this)->_M_deref(); }
};
template<typename _Iter, typename _Cat>
struct _Safe_iterator_mixin<_Iter, forward_iterator_tag>
{
_Iter& operator++()
{ return static_cast<_Iter*>(this)->_M_preinc(); }
_Iter operator++(int)
{ return static_cast<_Iter*>(this)->_M_postinc(); }
};
template<typename _Iter, typename _Cat>
struct _Safe_iterator_mixin<_Iter, bidirectional_iterator_tag>
{
_Iter& operator--()
{ return static_cast<_Iter*>(this)->_M_predec(); }
_Iter operator--(int)
{ return static_cast<_Iter*>(this)->_M_postdec(); }
};
etc.
then in _Safe_iterator rename the operator functions, so operator*
becomes _M_deref, operator++ becomes _M_preinc etc. and then derive
from _Safe_iterator_mixin which declares the operators.
FWIW I think your proposal with partial specializations for each
iterator category is probably better than this mixins idea (although I
think it requires a lot more code to implement it).
But I would like to know if it's possible to just change
_Safe_iterator instead of introducing a new _Safe_tagged_iterator
type.
