Add 'operator==' for 'basic_collection_iterator'

[Alex Denisov via llvm-commits]

Here is updated version. Hopefully comment and assert are expressive enough.
Also, expressed operator!= as negation of operator==, to not copy-paste assertion.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: basic_collection_iterator_operator_equals.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4246 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151220/56988938/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------


--
AlexDenisov
Software Engineer, http://lowlevelbits.org

> On 19 Dec 2015, at 01:33, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Yep, that's what I meant, but it needs a comment to explain why it's safe.
> 
> The assertion I wanted was
> 
> if (Base && Base == Other.Base)
>   assert(Base->CurrentEntry == Other->CurrentEntry && "appropriate message here");
> 
> That'll get trivially compiled out in Release builds, but in Debug builds it will catch any changes to the YAML parser in the future that might break the assumption.
> 
> Jordan
> 
>> On Dec 18, 2015, at 13:11, Alex Denisov <1101.debian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So I changed iterator tag to input_iterator and re-implemented equality operators.
>> 
>> Now it looks trivial:
>> 
>> bool operator==(const basic_collection_iterator &Other) const {
>>  return Base == Other.Base;
>> }
>> 
>> See the whole patch:
>> 
>> <basic_collection_iterator_operator_equals.patch>
>> --
>> AlexDenisov
>> Software Engineer, http://lowlevelbits.org
>> 
>>> On 18 Dec 2015, at 21:05, Alex Denisov <1101.debian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It really shouldn't be defining itself as a forward iterator. I think we should just make it an input iterator
>>> 
>>> Makes sense. I also looked at specification (§24.2.3, §24.2.5): the iterator doesn’t conform some requirements described there (e.g. multi-pass guarantee).
>>> 
>>>> and assert that the entries are the same if the bases are the same.
>>> 
>>> How do you want express the assertion? Do you mean semantic assertion e.g.: 'X == Y iff X.Base == Y.Base’ or something different?
>>> --
>>> AlexDenisov
>>> Software Engineer, http://lowlevelbits.org
>>> 
>>>> On 18 Dec 2015, at 19:22, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2015, at 5:49 , Alexey Denisov <1101.debian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ha, I was still thinking something simpler.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I came up with the same solution when I woke up next morning :-D
>>>>> 
>>>>>> EXPECT_FALSE(Begin == std::next(Begin));
>>>>>> EXPECT_FALSE(std::next(Begin) == Begin);
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have faced an issue with such tests. std::next in the case of SequenceNode mutates value in-place, so that iterators are equal.
>>>>> But it could be tested using some other BaseT, not a SequenceNode. I also realised it afterwards.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> InputIterators don't actually guarantee that this is valid, so we don't have to implement it, but I think we should do it just so other people don't get bitten. There's not much reason not to.
>>>> 
>>>> I looked at basic_collection_iterator again. It really shouldn't be defining itself as a forward iterator. I think we should just make it an input iterator and assert that the entries are the same if the bases are the same.
>>>> 
>>>> Jordan
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151220/56988938/attachment.sig>