+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Iterator concept and adapter issues +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ :date: $Date$ :copyright: Copyright David Abrahams, Jeremy Siek, and Thomas Witt 2003. =================================== Issues from Matt's TR issues list =================================== .. contents:: Index 9.1 iterator_access overspecified? ================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The proposal includes:: enum iterator_access { readable_iterator = 1, writable_iterator = 2, swappable_iterator = 4, lvalue_iterator = 8 }; In general, the standard specifies thing like this as a bitmask type with a list of defined names, and specifies neither the exact type nor the specific values. Is there a reason for iterator_access to be more specific? :Proposed resolution: The iterator_access enum will be removed, so this is no longer an issue. See the resolution to 9.15. 9.2 operators of iterator_facade overspecified ============================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New In general, we've provided operational semantics for things like operator++. That is, we've said that ++iter must work, without requiring either a member function or a non-member function. iterator_facade specifies most operators as member functions. There's no inherent reason for these to be members, so we should remove this requirement. Similarly, some operations are specified as non-member functions but could be implemented as members. Again, the standard doesn't make either of these choices, and TR1 shouldn't, either. So: ``operator*()``, ``operator++()``, ``operator++(int)``, ``operator--()``, ``operator--(int)``, ``operator+=``, ``operator-=``, ``operator-(difference_type)``, ``operator-(iterator_facade instance)``, and ``operator+`` should be specified with operational semantics and not explicitly required to be members or non-members. :Proposed resolution: Not a defect. :Rationale: We are following the approach in the standard. Classes such as reverse_iterator are specified by listing the function prototypes for the various operators. Further, the prototype specification does not prevent the implementor from using members or non-members. 9.3 enable_if_interoperable needs standardese ============================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The only discussion of what this means is in a note, so is non-normative. Further, the note seems to be incorrect. It says that enable_if_interoperable only works for types that "are interoperable, by which we mean they are convertible to each other." This requirement is too strong: it should be that one of the types is convertible to the other. N1541 48 :Proposed resolution: Pete proposed: Remove the enable_if_interoperable stuff, and just write all the comparisons to return bool. Then add a blanket statement that the behavior of these functions is undefined if the two types aren't interoperable. **Needs work** (Dave) I'm not happy with Pete's proposal. (thw) Pete is correct with regard to the requirement. Removing the interoperable stuff would be an error. By all means we don't want undefined behaviour here. 9.4 enable_if_convertible unspecified, conflicts with requires ============================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New In every place where enable_if_convertible is used it's used like this (simplified):: template struct C { template C(T1, enable_if_convertible::type* = 0); }; The idea being that this constructor won't compile if T1 isn't convertible to T. As a result, the constructor won't be considered as a possible overload when constructing from an object x where the type of x isn't convertible to T. In addition, however, each of these constructors has a requires clause that requires convertibility, so the behavior of a program that attempts such a construction is undefined. Seems like the enable_if_convertible part is irrelevant, and should be removed. There are two problems. First, enable_if_convertible is never specified, so we don’t know what this is supposed to do. Second: we could reasonably say that this overload should be disabled in certain cases or we could reasonably say that behavior is undefined, but we can’t say both. Thomas Witt writes that the goal of putting in enable_if_convertible here is to make sure that a specific overload doesn’t interfere with the generic case except when that overload makes sense. He agrees that what we currently have is deficient. Dave Abrahams writes that there is no conflict with the requires cause because the requires clause only takes effect when the function is actually called. The presence of the constructor signature can/will be detected by is_convertible without violating the requires clause, and thus it makes a difference to disable those constructor instantiations that would be disabled by enable_if_convertible even if calling them invokes undefined behavior. There was more discussion on the reflector: c++std-lib-12312, c++std-lib-12325, c++std-lib- 12330, c++std-lib-12334, c++std-lib-12335, c++std-lib-12336, c++std-lib-12338, c++std-lib- 12362. :Proposed resolution: Specify enable_if_convertible to be as-if :: template enable_if_convertible_impl {}; template <> enable_if_convertible_impl { struct type; }; template struct enable_if_convertible : enable_if_convertible_impl< is_convertible::value> {}; 9.5 iterator_adaptor has an extraneous 'bool' at the start of the template definition ===================================================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The title says it all; this is probably just a typo. :Proposed resolution: Remove the 'bool'. 9.6 Name of private member shouldn't be normative ================================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New iterator_adaptor has a private member named m_iterator. Presumably this is for exposition only, since it's an implementation detail. It needs to be marked as such. :Proposed resolution: Mark the member m_iterator as exposition only. Note/DWA: I think this is NAD because the user can't detect it, though I'm happy to mark it exposition only. 9.7 iterator_adaptor operations specifications are a bit inconsistent ===================================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New iterator_adpator() has a Requires clause, that Base must be default constructible. iterator_adaptor(Base) has no Requires clause, although the Returns clause says that the Base member is copy construced from the argument (this may actually be an oversight in N1550, which doesn't require iterators to be copy constructible or assignable). :Proposed resolution: Add a requirements section for the template parameters of iterator_adaptor, and state that Base must be Copy Constructible and Assignable. N1550 does in fact include requirements for copy constructible and assignable in the requirements tables. To clarify, we've also added the requirements to the text. 9.8 Specialized adaptors text should be normative ================================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New similar to 9.3, "Specialized Adaptors" has a note describing enable_if_convertible. This should be normative text. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Dave) Change it to normative text. See the resolution of 9.4 9.9 Reverse_iterator text is too informal ========================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New reverse iterator "flips the direction of the base iterator's motion". This needs to be more formal, as in the current standard. Something like: "iterates through the controlled sequence in the opposite direction" :Proposed resolution: Change the introduction to: The reverse iterator adaptor iterates through the adapted iterator range in the opposite direction. 9.10 'prior' is undefined ========================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New reverse_iterator::dereference is specified as calling a function named 'prior' which has no specification. :Proposed resolution: Change the specification to avoid using ``prior`` as follows. :Effects: :: Iterator tmp = m_iterator; return *--tmp; 9.11 "In other words" is bad wording ==================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New Transform iterator has a two-part specification: it does this, in other words, it does that. "In other words" always means "I didn't say it right, so I'll try again." We need to say it once. :Proposed resolution: Changed the introduction to: The transform iterator adapts an iterator by modifying the ``operator*`` to apply a function object to the result of dereferencing the iterator and returning the result. 9.12 Transform_iterator shouldn't mandate private member ======================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New transform_iterator has a private member named 'm_f' which should be marked "exposition only." :Proposed resolution: Mark the member m_f as exposition only. Note/DWA: I think this is NAD because the user can't detect it, though I'm happy to makr it exposition only. 9.13 Unclear description of counting iterator ============================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The description of Counting iterator is unclear. "The counting iterator adaptor implements dereference by returning a reference to the base object. The other operations are implemented by the base m_iterator, as per the inheritance from iterator_adaptor." :Proposed resolution: Change the introduction to: ``counting_iterator`` adapts an arithmetic type, such as ``int``, by adding an ``operator*`` that returns the current value of the object. 9.14 Counting_iterator's difference type ======================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New Counting iterator has the following note: [Note: implementers are encouraged to provide an implementation of distance_to and a difference_type that avoids overflows in the cases when the Incrementable type is a numeric type.] I'm not sure what this means. The user provides a template argument named Difference, but there's no difference_type. I assume this is just a glitch in the wording. But if implementors are encouraged to ignore this argument if it won't work right, why is it there? :Proposed resolution: The ``difference_type`` was inherited from ``iterator_adaptor``. However, we've removed the explicit inheritance, so explicit typedefs have been added. 9.15 How to detect lvalueness? ============================== :Submitter: Dave Abrahams :Status: New Shortly after N1550 was accepted, we discovered that an iterator's lvalueness can be determined knowing only its value_type. This predicate can be calculated even for old-style iterators (on whose reference type the standard places few requirements). A trait in the Boost iterator library does it by relying on the compiler's unwillingness to bind an rvalue to a T& function template parameter. Similarly, it is possible to detect an iterator's readability knowing only its value_type. Thus, any interface which asks the user to explicitly describe an iterator's lvalue-ness or readability seems to introduce needless complexity. :Proposed resolution: 1. Remove the ``is_writable`` and ``is_swappable`` traits, and remove the requirements in the Writable Iterator and Swappable Iterator concepts that require their models to support these traits. 2. Change the ``is_readable`` specification to be: ``is_readable::type`` is ``true_type`` if the result type of ``X::operator*`` is convertible to ``iterator_traits::value_type`` and is ``false_type`` otherwise. Also, ``is_readable`` is required to satisfy the requirements for the UnaryTypeTrait concept (defined in the type traits proposal). Remove the requirement for support of the ``is_readable`` trait from the Readable Iterator concept. 3. Remove the ``iterator_tag`` class. 4. Change the specification of ``traversal_category`` to:: traversal-category(Iterator) = let cat = iterator_traits::iterator_category if (cat is convertible to incrementable_iterator_tag) return cat; // Iterator is a new iterator else if (cat is convertible to random_access_iterator_tag) return random_access_traversal_tag; else if (cat is convertible to bidirectional_iterator_tag) return bidirectional_traversal_tag; else if (cat is convertible to forward_iterator_tag) return forward_traversal_tag; else if (cat is convertible to input_iterator_tag) return single_pass_iterator_tag; else if (cat is convertible to output_iterator_tag) return incrementable_iterator_tag; else return null_category_tag; :Rationale: 1. There are two reasons for removing ``is_writable`` and ``is_swappable``. The first is that we do not know of a way to fix the specification so that it gives the correct answer for all iterators. Second, there was only a weak motivation for having ``is_writable`` and ``is_swappable`` there in the first place. The main motivation was simply uniformity: we have tags for the old iterator categories so we should have tags for the new iterator categories. While having tags and the capability to dispatch based on the traversal categories is often used, we see less of a need for dispatching based on writability and swappability, since typically algorithms that need these capabilities have no alternative if they are not provided. 2. We discovered that the ``is_readable`` trait can be implemented using only the iterator type itself and its ``value_type``. Therefore we remove the requirement for ``is_readable`` from the Readable Iterator concept, and change the definition of ``is_readable`` so that it works for any iterator type. 3. The purpose of the ``iterator_tag`` class was to bundle the traversal and access category tags into the ``iterator_category`` typedef. With ``is_writable`` and ``is_swappable`` gone, and ``is_readable`` no longer in need of special hints, there is no reason for iterators to provide information about the access capabilities of an iterator. Thus there is no need for the ``iterator_tag``. The traversal tag can be directly used for the ``iterator_category``. If a new iterator is intended to be backward compatible with old iterator concepts, a tag type that is convertible to both one of the new traversal tags and also to an old iterator tag can be created and use for the ``iterator_category``. 4. The changes to the specification of ``traversal_category`` are a direct result of the removal of ``iterator_tag``. 9.16 is_writable_iterator returns false positives ================================================= :Submitter: Dave Abrahams :Status: New is_writable_iterator returns false positives for forward iterators whose value_type has a private assignment operator, or whose reference type is not a reference (currently legal). :Proposed Resolution: See the resolution to 9.15. 9.17 is_swappable_iterator returns false positives ================================================== :Submitter: Dave Abrahams :Status: New is_swappable_iterator has the same problems as is_writable_iterator. In addition, if we allow users to write their own iter_swap functions it's easy to imagine old-style iterators for which is_swappable returns false negatives. :Proposed Resolution: See the resolution to 9.15. 9.18 Are is_readable, is_writable, and is_swappable useful? =========================================================== :Submitter: Dave Abrahams :Status: New I am concerned that there is little use for any of is_readable, is_writable, or is_swappable, and that not only do they unduly constrain iterator implementors but they add overhead to iterator_facade and iterator_adaptor in the form of a template parameter which would otherwise be unneeded. Since we can't implement two of them accurately for old-style iterators, I am having a hard time justifying their impact on the rest of the proposal(s). :Proposed Resolution: See the resolution to 9.15. 9.19 Non-Uniformity of the "lvalue_iterator Bit" ================================================ :Submitter: Dave Abrahams :Status: New The proposed iterator_tag class template accepts an "access bits" parameter which includes a bit to indicate the iterator's lvalueness (whether its dereference operator returns a reference to its value_type. The relevant part of N1550 says: The purpose of the lvalue_iterator part of the iterator_access enum is to communicate to iterator_tagwhether the reference type is an lvalue so that the appropriate old category can be chosen for the base class. The lvalue_iterator bit is not recorded in the iterator_tag::access data member. The lvalue_iterator bit is not recorded because N1550 aims to improve orthogonality of the iterator concepts, and a new-style iterator's lvalueness is detectable by examining its reference type. This inside/outside difference is awkward and confusing. :Proposed Resolution: The iterator_tag class will be removed, so this is no longer an issue. See the resolution to 9.15. 9.20 Traversal Concepts and Tags ================================ :Submitter: Dave Abrahams :Status: New Howard Hinnant pointed out some inconsistencies with the naming of these tag types:: incrementable_iterator_tag // ++r, r++ single_pass_iterator_tag // adds a == b, a != b forward_traversal_iterator_tag // adds multi-pass bidirectional_traversal_iterator_tag // adds --r, r-- random_access_traversal_iterator_tag // adds r+n,n+r,etc. Howard thought that it might be better if all tag names contained the word "traversal". It's not clear that would result in the best possible names, though. For example, incrementable iterators can only make a single pass over their input. What really distinguishes single pass iterators from incrementable iterators is not that they can make a single pass, but that they are equality comparable. Forward traversal iterators really distinguish themselves by introducing multi-pass capability. Without entering a "Parkinson's Bicycle Shed" type of discussion, it might be worth giving the names of these tags (and the associated concepts) some extra attention. :Proposed resolution: Change the names of the traversal tags to the following names:: incrementable_traversal_tag single_pass_traversal_tag forward_traversal_tag bidirectional_traversal_tag random_access_traversal_tag ** Needs work ** (thw) I still believe that implicit_traversal_tag is more appropriate than incrementable_traversal_tag 9.21 iterator_facade Derived template argument underspecified ============================================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The first template argument to iterator_facade is named Derived, and the proposal says: The Derived template parameter must be a class derived from iterator_facade. First, iterator_facade is a template, so cannot be derived from. Rather, the class must be derived from a specialization of iterator_facade. More important, isn't Derived required to be the class that is being defined? That is, if I understand it right, the definition of D here this is not valid:: class C : public iterator_facade { ... }; class D : public iterator_facade { ... }; In the definition of D, the Derived argument to iterator_facade is a class derived from a specialization of iterator_facade, so the requirement is met. Shouldn't the requirement be more like "when using iterator_facade to define an iterator class Iter, the class Iter must be derived from a specialization of iterator_facade whose first template argument is Iter." That's a bit awkward, but at the moment I don't see a better way of phrasing it. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Dave) Reword. 01/01/04 thw The wording is certainly insufficient. AFAICS there are two issues. First the issue addressed by Pete i.e. specifying the requirements for implementing a valid iterator. The other issue I can see is that we need to be able to unambigously cast the iterator_facade specialisation to Iter. 9.22 return type of Iterator difference for iterator facade =========================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The proposal says:: template typename enable_if_interoperable::type operator -(iterator_facade const& lhs, iterator_facade const& rhs); Shouldn't the return type be one of the two iterator types? Which one? The idea is that if one of the iterator types can be converted to the other type, then the subtraction is okay. Seems like the return type should then be the type that was converted to. Is that right? :Proposed resolution: Change the return type from :: typename enable_if_interoperable::type to :: typename enable_if_interoperable::type 01/01/04 thw Almost, the return type should be the difference_type of the converted to iterator. BTW how does std::distance handle different but interoperable iterator types? 9.23 Iterator_facade: minor wording Issue ========================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New In the table that lists the required (sort of) member functions of iterator types that are based on iterator_facade, the entry for c.equal(y) says: true iff c and y refer to the same position. Implements c == y and c != y. The second sentence is inside out. c.equal(y) does not implement either of these operations. It is used to implement them. Same thing in the description of c.distance_to(z). :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Dave) Reword. 9.24 Use of undefined name in iterator_facade table =================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New Several of the descriptions use the name X without defining it. This seems to be a carryover from the table immediately above this section, but the text preceding that table says "In the table below, X is the derived iterator type." Looks like the X:: qualifiers aren't really needed; X::reference can simply be reference, since that's defined by the iterator_facade specialization itself. :Proposed resolution: **Needs language** (Dave) Remove the use of X. 9.25 Iterator_facade: wrong return type ======================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New Several of the member functions return a Derived object or a Derived&. Their Effects clauses end with:: return *this; This should be :: return *static_cast(this); :Proposed resolution: Change the returns clause to:: return *static_cast(this); Note/DWA: I think this needs to be a more detailed change list, so I'm marking it **Needs language**. 9.26 Iterator_facade: unclear returns clause for operator[] =========================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The returns clause for ``operator[](difference_type n)`` const says: Returns: an object convertible to X::reference and holding a copy p of a+n such that, for a constant object v of type X::value_type, X::reference(a[n] = v) is equivalent to p = v. This needs to define 'a', but assuming it's supposed to be ``*this`` (or maybe ``*(Derived*)this``), it still isn't clear what this says. Presumably, the idea is that you can index off of an iterator and assign to the result. But why the requirement that it hold a copy of a+n? Granted, that's probably how it's implemented, but it seems over-constrained. And the last phrase seems wrong. p is an iterator; there's no requirement that you can assign a value_type object to it. Should that be ``*p = v``? But why the cast in reference(a[n] = v)? :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Dave) Change ``*this`` to ``*static_cast(this)``. Also reword the stuff about ``X::reference(a[n] = v)`` is equivalent to ``p = v``. Also make sure whatever's written accounts for ``v = a[n]`` 9.27 Iterator_facade: redundant clause ====================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New ``operator-`` has both an effects clause and a returns clause. Looks like the returns clause should be removed. :Proposed resolution: Remove the returns clause. 9.28 indirect_iterator: incorrect specification of default constructor ====================================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The default constructor returns "An instance of indirect_iterator with a default constructed base object", but the constructor that takes an Iterator object returns "An instance of indirect_iterator with the iterator_adaptor subobject copy constructed from x." The latter is the correct form, since it does not reach inside the base class for its semantics. So the default constructor shoudl return "An instance of indirect_iterator with a default-constructed iterator_adaptor subobject." :Proposed resolution: Change the specification of the default constructor to ``indirect_iterator();`` :Requires: ``Iterator`` must be Default Constructible. :Returns: An instance of ``indirect_iterator`` with a default-constructed ``m_iterator``. :Rationale: Inheritance from iterator_adaptor has been removed, so we instead give the semantics in terms of the (exposition only) member ``m_iterator``. 9.29 indirect_iterator: unclear specification of template constructor ===================================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The templated constructor that takes an indirect_iterator with a different set of template arguments says that it returns "An instance of indirect_iterator that is a copy of [the argument]". But the type of the argument is different from the type of the object being constructed, and there is no description of what a "copy" means. The Iterator template parameter for the argument must be convertible to the Iterator template parameter for the type being constructed, which suggests that the argument's contained Iterator object should be converted to the target type's Iterator type. Is that what's meant here? (Pete later writes: In fact, this problem is present in all of the specialized adaptors that have a constructor like this: the constructor returns "a copy" of the argument without saying what a copy is.) :Proposed resolution: Change the specification to :: template < class Iterator2, class Value2, unsigned Access, class Traversal , class Reference2, class Difference2 > indirect_iterator( indirect_iterator< Iterator2, Value2, Access, Traversal, Reference2, Difference2 > const& y , typename enable_if_convertible::type* = 0 // exposition ); :Requires: ``Iterator2`` is implicitly convertible to ``Iterator``. :Returns: An instance of ``indirect_iterator`` whose ``m_iterator`` subobject is constructed from ``y.base()``. :Rationale: Inheritance from iterator_adaptor has been removed, so we instead give the semantics in terms of the (exposition only) member ``m_iterator``. 9.30 transform_iterator argument irregularity ============================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New The specialized adaptors that take both a Value and a Reference template argument all take them in that order, i.e. Value precedes Reference in the template argument list, with the exception of transform_iterator, where Reference precedes Value. This seems like a possible source of confusion. Is there a reason why this order is preferable? :Proposed resolution: Change the argument order so that Value precedes reference. 9.31 function_output_iterator overconstrained ============================================= :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New function_output_iterator requirements says: "The UnaryFunction must be Assignable, Copy Constructible, and the expression f(x) must be valid, where f is an object of type UnaryFunction and x is an object of a type accepted by f." Everything starting with "and," somewhat reworded, is actually a constraint on output_proxy::operator=. All that's needed to create a function_output_iterator object is that the UnaryFunction type be Assignable and CopyConstructible. That's also sufficient to dereference and to increment such an object. It's only when you try to assign through a dereferenced iterator that f(x) has to work, and then only for the particular function object that the iterator holds and for the particular value that is being assigned. :Proposed resolution: Remove the part of the sentence after "and". Remove the use of ``output_proxy`` and instead specify ``operator*`` in the following way. ``/* implementation defined */ operator*();`` :Returns: An object ``r`` of implementation defined type such that if ``f(t)`` is a valid expression for some object ``t`` then ``r = t`` is a valid expression. ``r = t`` will have the same effect as ``f(t)``. 9.32 Should output_proxy really be a named type? ================================================ :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New This means someone can store an output_proxy object for later use, whatever that means. It also constrains output_proxy to hold a copy of the function object, rather than a pointer to the iterator object. Is all this mechanism really necessary? :Proposed resolution: See issue 9.31. 9.33 istreambuf_iterator isn't a Readable Iterator ================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New c++std-lib-12333: N1550 requires that for a Readable Iterator a of type X, ``*a`` returns an object of type ``iterator_traits::reference``. ``istreambuf_iterator::operator*`` returns ``charT``, but ``istreambuf_iterator::reference`` is ``charT&``. So am I overlooking something, or is ``istreambuf_iterator`` not Readable. :Proposed resolution: Remove all constraints on ``iterator_traits::reference`` in Readable Iterator and Lvalue Iterator. Change Lvalue Iterator to refer to ``T&`` instead of ``iterator_traits::reference``. :Rationale: Ideally there should be requirements on the reference type, however, since Readable Iterator is suppose to correspond to the current standard iterator requirements (which do not place requirements on the reference type) we will leave them off for now. There is a DR in process with respect to the reference type in the stadard iterator requirements. Once that is resolved we will revisit this issue for Readable Iterator and Lvalue Iterator. 9.34 iterator_facade free functions unspecified =============================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New c++std-lib-12562: The template functions ``operator==``, ``operator!=``, ``operator<``, ``operator<=``, ``operator>``, ``operator>=``, and ``operator-`` that take two arguments that are specializations of iterator_facade have no specification. The template function operator+ that takes an argument that is a specialization of iterator_facade and an argument of type difference_type has no specification. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Dave) Add the missing specifications. 9.35 iterator_facade: too many equals? ====================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New c++std-lib-12563: The table listing the functions required for types derived from iterator_facade has two functions named equal and two named distance_to:: c.equal(b) c.equal(y) c.distance_to(b) c.distance_to(z) where b and c are const objects of the derived type, y and z are constant objects of certain iterator types that are interoperable with the derived type. Seems like the 'b' versions are redundant: in both cases, the other version will take a 'b'. In fact, iterator_adaptor is specified to use iterator_facade, but does not provide the 'b' versions of these functions. Are the 'b' versions needed? :Proposed resolution: Remove the 'b' versions. 9.36 iterator_facade function requirements ========================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New c++std-lib-12636: The table that lists required functions for the derived type X passed to iterator_facade lists, among others: for a single pass iterator:: c.equal(b) c.equal(y) where b and c are const X objects, and y is a const object of a single pass iterator that is interoperable with X. Since X is interoperable with itself, c.equal(b) is redundant. There is a difference in their descriptions, but its meaning isn't clear. The first is "true iff b and c are equivalent", and the second is "true iff c and y refer to the same position." Is there a difference between the undefined term "equivalent" and "refer to the same position"? Similarly, for a random access traversal iterator:: c.distance_to(b) c.distance_to(z) where z is a constant object of a random access traversal iterator that is interoperable with X. Again, X is interoperable with itself, so c.distance_to(b) is redundant. Also, the specification for c.distance_to(z) isn't valid. It's written as "equivalent to distance(c, z)". The template function distance takes two arguments of the same type, so distance(c, z) isn't valid if c and z are different types. Should it be distance(c, (X)z)? :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Dave) We need to define what "same position" means for iterators. This also needs to be part of the definition of an Interoperable Iterator concept. ==================================== More Issues (not from Matt's list) ==================================== Inheritance in iterator_adaptor and other adaptors is an overspecification ========================================================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker :Status: New c++std-lib-12696: The paper requires that iterator_adaptor be derived from an appropriate instance of iterator_facade, and that most of the specific forms of adaptors be derived from appropriate instances of iterator_adaptor. That seems like overspecification, and we ought to look at specifying these things in terms of what the various templates provide rather than how they're implemented. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** Remove the specfication of inheritance, and add lots of specification to make up for it. In iterator_adaptor, that means duplicating a lot of function prototypes. In the other adaptors, that means making sure we state what concepts are modeled. Also, we will need an Interoperable Iterator concept to accomplish this. I'll start on the work of changing the specification for the specialized adaptors. -Jeremy Problem with specification of a->m in Readable Iterator ======================================================= :Submitter: Howard Hinnant :Status: New c++std-lib-12585: Readable Iterator Requirements says:: a->m U& pre: (*a).m is well-defined. Equivalent to (*a).m Do we mean to outlaw iterators with proxy references from meeting the readable requirements? Would it be better for the requirements to read ``static_cast(*a).m`` instead of ``(*a).m`` ? :Proposed resolution: Change the requirement to :pre: ``static_cast(*a).m`` is well-defined. If ``static_cast(*a).m`` is well-defined, equivalent to ``static_cast(*a).m``; otherwise, equivalent to ``static_cast(*a).m``. counting_iterator Traversal argument unspecified ================================================ :Submitter: Pete Becker c++std-lib-12635: counting_iterator takes an argument for its Traversal type, with a default value of use_default. It is derived from an instance of iterator_adaptor, where the argument passed for the Traversal type is described as "\ ``/* see details for traversal category */``". The details for counting_iterator describe constraints on the Incrementable type imposed by various traversal categories. There is no description of what the argument to iterator_adaptor should be. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Jeremy) indirect_iterator requirements muddled ====================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker c++std-lib-12640: The value_type of the Iterator template parameter should itself be dereferenceable. The return type of the ``operator*`` for the value_type must be the same type as the Reference template parameter. I'd say this a bit differently, to emphasize what's required: iterator_traits::value_type must be dereferenceable. The Reference template parameter must be the same type as ``*iterator_traits::value_type()``. The Value template parameter will be the value_type for the indirect_iterator, unless Value is const. If Value is const X, then value_type will be non- const X. Also non-volatile, right? In other words, if Value isn't use_default, it just gets passed as the Value argument for iterator_adaptor. The default for Value is:: iterator_traits< iterator_traits::value_type >::value_type If the default is used for Value, then there must be a valid specialization of iterator_traits for the value type of the base iterator. The earlier requirement is that ``iterator_traits::value_type`` must be dereferenceable. Now it's being treated as an iterator. Is this just a pun, or is ``iterator_traits::value_type`` required to be some form of iterator? If it's the former we need to find a different way to say it. If it's the latter we need to say so. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Jeremy) :Rationale: iterator_facade just does remove_const::type, so value_type is volatile if Value is. Problem with transform_iterator requirements ============================================ :Submitter: Pete Becker c++std-lib-12641: The reference type of transform_iterator is ``result_of::reference)>::type``. The ``value_type`` is ``remove_cv >::type``. These are the defaults, right? If the user supplies their own types that's what gets passed to iterator_adaptor. And again, the specification should be in terms of the specialization of iterator_adaptor, and not in terms of the result: Reference argument to iterator_adaptor:: if (Reference != use_default) Reference else result_of::reference)>::type Value argument to iterator_adaptor:: if (Value != use_default) Value else if (Reference != use_default) remove_reference::type else remove_reference::reference)>::type>::type There's probably a better way to specify that last alternative, but I've been at this too long, and it's all turning into a maze of twisty passages, all alike. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Jeremy) filter_iterator details unspecified =================================== :Submitter: Pete Becker c++std-lib-12642: The paper says:: template class filter_iterator : public iterator_adaptor< filter_iterator, Iterator, use_default, /* see details */ > That comment covers the Access, Traversal, Reference, and Difference arguments. The only specification for any of these in the details is:: The access category of the filter_iterator will be the same as the access category of Iterator. Needs more. :Proposed resolution: **Needs work** (Jeremy)