[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libcxx] adds ranges::fold_left_with_iter and ranges::fold_left (PR #75259)

[via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+// -*- C++ -*-
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#ifndef _LIBCPP___ALGORITHM_FOLD_H
+#define _LIBCPP___ALGORITHM_FOLD_H
+
+#include <__concepts/assignable.h>
+#include <__concepts/convertible_to.h>
+#include <__concepts/invocable.h>
+#include <__concepts/movable.h>
+#include <__config>
+#include <__functional/invoke.h>
+#include <__functional/reference_wrapper.h>
+#include <__iterator/concepts.h>
+#include <__iterator/iterator_traits.h>
+#include <__iterator/next.h>
+#include <__ranges/access.h>
+#include <__ranges/concepts.h>
+#include <__ranges/dangling.h>
+#include <__type_traits/decay.h>
+#include <__type_traits/invoke.h>
+#include <__utility/forward.h>
+#include <__utility/move.h>
+
+#if !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER)
+#  pragma GCC system_header
+#endif
+
+_LIBCPP_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_STD
+
+#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= 23
+
+namespace ranges {
+template <class _Ip, class _Tp>
+struct in_value_result {
+  _Ip in;
+  _Tp result;
+};
+
+template <class _Ip, class _Tp>
+using fold_left_with_iter_result = in_value_result<_Ip, _Tp>;
+
+template <class _Fp, class _Tp, class _Ip, class _Rp, class _Up = decay_t<_Rp>>
+concept __indirectly_binary_left_foldable_impl =
+    convertible_to<_Rp, _Up> &&                    //
----------------
EricWF wrote:

For the room: Chris and I spent 20 minute discussing this offline.

OK, I don't see any value in the refactoring here. Practically speaking it gets us nothing.

However,, writing it out verbatim makes the code trivial to inspect for correctness. You simply diff it against the standard. 

As written this code is significantly harder to understand in the light of the subtleties of concept subsumption.

If I find time I'll be writing some docs for review that suggest we _always_ copy concepts given as exposition verbatim from the standard. Isn't that the whole reason they're there. 

I won't block this review on it. So I'm going to leave this conversation here so we can have it in a more appropriate venue.  

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75259