[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] C++11 reverse iterators (was C++11 is here)

[Chandler Carruth]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 3 March 2014 12:32, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote:
>>> >> Would those work with a foreach construct? Perhaps I forgot to
>>> mention that was what I'm trying to work out here.
>>> >>
>>> >> In example 3 I was wondering if we could define a method reverse().
>>> We could use sfinae to wrap that around rbegin/rend if people like that
>>> style?
>>> >
>>> > Sorry, I was too terse... ;)
>>> >
>>> > If MF is a reverse_iterator, it'd just work, no? But to get the
>>> > reverse iterator, I think reverse() would be the best general pattern,
>>> > since you can adapt it to each container needs.
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of the prior art or standards are here, but I think that a
>>> global reverse() adapter is the way to go.  Likewise, we should have a
>>> standard "enumerate()" adaptor like python.
>>
>>
>> I definitely prefer the global adaptor pattern.  As for prior art, I had
>> played with it a bit, and came up with
>> https://gist.github.com/compnerd/5694186 a while back.
>>
>
> Yea, there is a pretty strong move toward range adaptors. If possible, I'm
> going to work on contributing a basic selection of them to LLVM's ADT
> specifically to address the immediate needs of range-based for loops.
>
>
> Sounds good.  We also have to decide what to do with Function::arg_begin()
> for example (and all the other secondary ranges hanging off IR and other
> things).  IMO, "for (auto &arg : F.getArguments())" makes the most sense.
>

I was actually going to check in this, but I can post it for review if
folks are worried.

My plan was to provide an implementation of std::iterator_range<T> and then
provide 'F.arguments()' which returns it.


>
> -Chris
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140302/dc1fbb3f/attachment.html>