public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Sutton <andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [c++-concepts] code review
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:20:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51BF617D.3080101@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANq5SysgoJ0nVdrqLMjFqaWcmz97dB03qbKCs_ZpoBS+OVYzfg@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/17/2013 02:10 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
>> You mean you don't need <algorithm> anymore in logic.cc?  I think we want
>> the <cstdlib> include in general if we're going to support people using the
>> C++ standard library.
>
> I don't. Those decisions are above my pay grade, so I'm doing my best
> not to make them.

If you don't need the change for concepts any more, feel free to drop it.

>> Can friend temploids be constrained?
>
> I have not thought deeply about constrained friend declarations. What
> would a friend temploid look like?

I was thinking something like

template <class T> struct A {
   T t;
  requires Addable<T>()
   friend A operator+(const A& a1, const A& a2)
   { return A(a1.t + a2.t); }
};

>> I'm not clear on the issue.  Perhaps leaving processing_template_decl alone
>> and using fold_non_dependent_expr would accomplish what you want?
>
> I don't think that will work. The problem comes from the instantiation
> of traits (and some other expressions) during constraint checking.
> When processing_template_decl is non-zero, finish_trait_expr will
> create TRAIT_EXPR nodes, which aren't handled by the constexpr
> evaluation engine.

Sure, but fold_non_dependent_expr should turn the TRAIT_EXPR into a more 
useful form.

>> Can explicit specializations have constraints, to indicate which template
>> they are specializing?
>
> Good question. I don't think so. I believe that it would be a
> specialization of the most specialized function template whose
> constraints were satisfied. So:

Makes sense.

>> Passing 'true' for require_all_args means no deduction will be done; rather,
>> all arguments must either be specified or have default arguments.
>
> I see. It seems like I should be passing false here, since I want to
> ensure that the resulting argument list can be used to instantiate the
> template.

I think true is what you want, since there are no function arguments to 
do argument deduction from.  Passing true for require_all_args 
guarantees that the result can be used to instantiate the template; 
passing false can return an incomplete set of arguments that will be 
filled in later by fn_type_unification.

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-17 19:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-28 14:07 [c++-concepts] Reserving new keywords for concepts Andrew Sutton
2013-02-28 14:51 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-02-28 15:01   ` Andrew Sutton
2013-02-28 15:11     ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-02-28 15:54       ` Andrew Sutton
2013-02-28 15:57         ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-06 15:55   ` [c++-concepts] code review Jason Merrill
2013-06-06 17:48     ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-06 20:29       ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-08 13:35         ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-10  0:49           ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-10 16:27             ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-10 19:30           ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-11 13:45             ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-11 14:27               ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-11 14:49                 ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-11 15:00                   ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-11 15:09                     ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-11 17:54                       ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-12 15:53             ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-12 16:35               ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-14 15:32                 ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-15  1:40                   ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-15  2:13                     ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-17 18:11                     ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-17 19:20                       ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2013-06-18  0:29                         ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-18 16:28                         ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-19 14:21                           ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-19 16:10                             ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-20  5:30                             ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-20 13:01                               ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-20 13:09                                 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-20 13:19                                   ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-20 13:57                                     ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-20 14:18                                       ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-20 15:17                                         ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-20 15:22                                           ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-20 15:27                                             ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-20 15:29                                               ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-20 15:50                                           ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-20 17:23                                             ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-20 18:33                                               ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-21 12:46                                                 ` Andrew Sutton
2013-06-24 15:55                                                   ` Jason Merrill
2013-06-20 15:20                                     ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-09 20:34         ` Oleg Endo
2013-06-10  0:34           ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-06-10 14:51             ` Diego Novillo
2013-06-10 22:51               ` Lawrence Crowl
2013-06-10 16:14             ` Jason Merrill
2015-05-01 18:32 Jason Merrill
2015-05-01 19:21 ` Andrew Sutton
2015-05-08 20:08 ` Andrew Sutton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=51BF617D.3080101@redhat.com \
    --to=jason@redhat.com \
    --cc=andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdr@integrable-solutions.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).