-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Implement LWG-3392 ranges::distance() cannot be used on a move-only iterator with a sized sentinel
#2421
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Stephan T. Lavavej (StephanTLavavej)
merged 3 commits into
microsoft:main
from
CaseyCarter:lwg3392
Jan 22, 2022
Merged
Implement LWG-3392 ranges::distance() cannot be used on a move-only iterator with a sized sentinel
#2421
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why must these be enum classes instead of simple bools?
It is fun to read
nothrow NoThrow = nothrow::no(no, NoThrow!) butnoexcept(IsNoThrow)might be clearer...Pre-existing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because it is much more difficult to reason about what
meow<true>does compared tomeow<nothrow::no>Also it is much harder to accidentally pass the wrong thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Especially in this case where it is
Are you sure those are in the right order?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nothrowis a terrible name. How many times have I told someone not to put a negative in a name?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But you told them not to do it.
Nobody said you could not commit horrible code crimes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
May I suggest something giving the best of both worlds (in the future, this is pre-existing, also using enum helps a ton):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suppose you could name the enum if you really want to, but that isn't relevant for clarity, just for preventing type confusion, but type confusion is arguably not a big deal here since really the type is bool for all of them.