Reverse range adapter

[Pete Cooper]

> On Jul 29, 2015, at 2:44 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Drop the ", int" from enable_if and use nullptr instead of 0 for the default value (enable_if uses void* by default, so this is sort of more typical - of course the 0 works too)
> 
> Perhaps add:
> 
>   const TypeParam c = {0, 1, 2, 3};
>   TestRev(reverse(c));
> 
> to TYPED_TEST(RangeAdapterLValueTest, TrivialOperation), to test the const cases?
Done.  I remove the custom vector types from the lvalue test as they don’t support const_iterator’s.  But they are tested in the rvalue test so that should be fine.
> 
> & run the whole thing through clang-format, if you haven't already? (I see some inconsistencies - like the space, or not, between the {} for the two Test derived class templates)
Yeo, there were a few missing places.  I went over the changes made by clang format and all looked fine.
> 
> & then feel free to commit at your leisure & we'll cross our fingers for the GCC bots.
Great.  Thanks again for all the help.  I get the feeling as this point that you could have written it faster than helping me, so i really appreciate the guidance on this.  Its r243581.

Pete
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com <mailto:peter_cooper at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 2:22 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com <mailto:peter_cooper at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:50 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yep, something like that looks about right. I'm not sure if it can be generalized further so we can reuse some of the machinery for begin, end, rbegin, rend, getDecl, etc. You can probably just SFINAE on begin/rbegin and assume end/rend exist - but if we can get the SFINAE tidy enough it wouldn't hurt to test for both, I suppose.
>>> 
>>> btw, my change to the test that demonstrates the problem with using universal ref/lvalue ref distinction to differentiate is this: add "const ReverseOnlyVector/const BidirectionalVector" to the Types vector & you'll see failures in the existing implementation. Alternatively/in addition, could refactor out the body of the TrivialOperation test into a template, then instantiate that template with TypeParam and const TypeParam, so you don't have to list all of them as const/non-const in the list of types.
>>> 
>>> Also, I added this rvalue version:
>>> 
>>> template <typename T> struct RangeAdapterRValueTest : testing::Test {};
>>> 
>>> typedef ::testing::Types<std::vector<int>, std::list<int>, ReverseOnlyVector,
>>>                          BidirectionalVector> RangeAdapterRValueTestTypes;
>>> TYPED_TEST_CASE(RangeAdapterRValueTest, RangeAdapterRValueTestTypes);
>>> 
>>> 
>>> template<typename R>
>>> void TestRev(const R& r) {
>>>   int counter = 3;
>>>   for (int i : r)
>>>     EXPECT_EQ(i, counter--);
>>> }
>>> 
>>> TYPED_TEST(RangeAdapterRValueTest, TrivialOperation) {
>>>   TestRev(reverse(TypeParam({0, 1, 2, 3})));
>>> }
>> Very nice.  Thanks for doing that.
>> 
>> Here’s a patch with the fixes.  I had to extend has_rbegin to handle whether its a class or not (int[] failed without that).  Otherwise its basically just like has_getDecl.  I think has_getDecl is in an internal namespace.  I can do the same here if you like, i’m fine either way.
>> 
>> So the rvalue tests I added don't cover the non-rvalue case your existing test cases covered (nor the array cases) - looks like you dropped the originals?
> Sorry, i misread your email before.  I thought what you had replaced my tests, now I see that it was the additional of rvalue tests.  I’ve refactored what I had to use the TestRev method you have and added lvalue tests.
>> 
>> I wonder if the SFINAE can be done without trying to derive from the type (some types might not be derivable)
>> 
>> Maybe the hasDecl was written pre-C++11?
>> 
>> This /seems/ to work in the basic case:
>> 
>> struct foo {
>>   void func();
>> };
>> 
>> struct bar {
>> };
>> 
>> template<typename T>
>> struct has_func {
>>   template<typename U>
>>   static char (&f(const U&, decltype(&U::func)))[1];
>>   static char (&f(...))[2];
>>   const static bool value = sizeof(f(std::declval<T>(), nullptr)) == 1;
>> };
>> 
>> static_assert(has_func<foo>::value, "");
>> static_assert(!has_func<bar>::value, "”);
> Yeah, thats much better.  In fact there were a couple of cases failing with my implementation when i brought back all the tests.  This version handles everything.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> (plus the extra non-class detection you had too)
>>  
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Pete
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150729/f14a1887/attachment.html>