[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D102809: [libcxx][ranges] Add `ranges::iter_swap`.

[Zoe Carver via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

zoecarver added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__iterator/iter_swap.h:60
+    {
+      (void)iter_swap(_VSTD::forward<_T1>(__x), _VSTD::forward<_T2>(__y));
+    }
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Here and line 80, I suggest removing the cast to `(void)`. IIUC, the reason it's there in https://eel.is/c++draft/iterator.cust.swap#4.1 is to make the "expression-equivalent-to" part work out to the correct type.
> However, it does occur to me that a cast to `(void)` is technically //not// a no-op, because it affects the well-formedness of the expression when `iter_swap` has been marked `[[nodiscard]]` (and a user's ADL `iter_swap` //might// be marked `[[nodiscard]]` for all we know).
> I'd be interested in @tcanens' take on whether the `(void)` cast is indispensable.
I'm slightly against removing the void cast, basically to make sure a case like `ensureVoidCast` works below. 


================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__iterator/iter_swap.h:75-76
+                !__readable_swappable<_T1, _T2>) &&
+               indirectly_movable_storable<_T1, _T2> &&
+               indirectly_movable_storable<_T2, _T1>
+    constexpr void operator()(_T1&& __x, _T2&& __y) const
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> This should say `indirectly_movable_storable<_T1&&, _T2&&>`, right? because the type of `E1` is not `_T1` but rather `_T1&&`?
> Can you find a test case that demonstrates the difference, and add it as a regression test?
> This comment //probably// applies equally to all your uses of exposition-only helpers such as `__readable_swappable`, but I'm even less confident that that difference will be detectable by a test.
This is my bad for naming these `_T1` and `_T2` so when I read the standard wording, my brain thought it meant to just use the template params (which don't exist in the wording). I think you're right. 


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.cust/iterator.cust.swap.pass.cpp:155
+  std::ranges::iter_swap(arr.begin(), arr.begin() + 1);
+  assert(arr[0].moves() == 1 && arr[1].moves() == 2);
+
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> It seems like this is testing //the order in which// `std::swap` performs its moves — is that right? If so, I don't think it belongs in libcxx/test/std/ at all.  Ditto throughout.
Hmm, I see what you're saying with L155 specifically. And we probably don't really need this test (or maybe a better test would be `arr[0].moves() + arr[1].moves() == 3`. 

> Ditto throughout.

Where else do you see this?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102809/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102809