[PATCH] D57106: [AST] Introduce GenericSelectionExpr::Association

[Bruno Ricci via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

riccibruno marked an inline comment as done.
riccibruno added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/Expr.h:5103
+    using reference = AssociationTy<Const>;
+    using pointer = AssociationTy<Const>;
+    AssociationIteratorTy() = default;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Carrying over the conversation from D57098:
> 
> >> @aaron.ballman Cute, but I suspect this may come back to bite us at some point. For instance, if someone thinks they're working with a real pointer, they're likely to expect pointer arithmetic to work when it won't (at least they'll get compile errors though).
> > @riccibruno Hmm, but pointer is just the return type of operator-> no ? Is it actually required to behave like a pointer ? The only requirement I can find is that It->x must be equivalent to (*It).x, which is true here.
> 
> I double-checked and you're right, this is not a requirement of the STL.
> 
> > Also looking at the requirements for forward iterators I think that this iterator should actually be downgraded to an input iterator, because of the requirement that reference = T&.
> 
> My concern is that with the less functional iterators, common algorithms get more expensive. For instance, `std::distance()`, `std::advance()` become more expensive without random access, and things like `std::prev()` become impossible.
> 
> It seems like the view this needs to provide is a read-only access to the `AssociationTy` objects (because we need to construct them on the fly), but not the data contained within them. If the only thing you can get back from the iterator is a const pointer/reference/value type, then we could store a local "current association" object in the iterator and return a pointer/reference to that. WDYT?
I am worried about lifetime issues with this approach. Returning a reference/pointer to an `Association` object stored in the iterator means that the reference/pointer will dangle as soon as the iterator goes out of scope. This is potentially surprising since the "container" (that is the `GenericSelectionExpr`) here will still be in scope. Returning a value is safer in this aspect.

I believe it should be possible to make the iterator a random access iterator, at least
if we are willing to ignore some requirements:

1.) For forward iterators and up, we must have `reference = T&` or `const T&`.
2.) For forward iterators and up, `It1 == It2` if and only if `*It1` and `*It2` are bound to the same object.


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D57106/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D57106