[PATCH] D27874: ilist_iterator: Allow conversion between reverse and forward iterators

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-commits]

Or getRawReverse?

> On 2017-Jan-30, at 10:01, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> (+Kyle, since he noticed this first.)
> 
> E.g., getReverseWithoutShiftingBy1?
> 
>> On 2017-Jan-30, at 10:00, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I thing we should have *something* that does the natural thing, and I'm extremely hesitant to change the semantics of getReverse() since that was extremely error prone last time.  Here's another possibility:
>> - Rename getReverse() to some-great-new-name-that-is-clear.
>> - Add conversions between forward/reverse do the same thing as std::reverse_iterator, with the off-by-1 thing.
>> 
>> Any suggestions for something that's clear?
>> 
>>> On 2017-Jan-30, at 09:49, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Maybe - I'm not sure the explicit ctor is sufficiently explicit from a self-documenting code perspective:
>>> 
>>> reverse_iterator R(I);
>>> reverse_iterator R = I.getReverse();
>>> 
>>> I would be a bit surprised that those two things had different semantics.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>> I think adding:
>>> --
>>> explicit iterator(reverse_iterator I) : I(++I.getReverse().base()) {}
>>> explicit reverse_iterator(iterator I) : I(++I.getReverse().base()) {}
>>> --
>>> should fix the problem.
>>> - getReverse() keeps the current semantics of getting the reverse of whatever you're currently referencing.
>>> - conversions between forward/reverse do the same thing as std::reverse_iterator, with the off-by-1 thing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2017-Jan-30, at 09:43, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, I think it might be too subtle to have these reverse iterators behave differently from other reverse iterators. (I haven't checked the spec in detail to see if it's only stD::reverse_iterator that has this oddity, or if all reverse iterators must do so) 'getReverse' seems like a good/clear solution, if a little odd but at least visibly so.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:33 PM Matthias Braun via Phabricator via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> MatzeB abandoned this revision.
>>>> MatzeB added a comment.
>>>> 
>>>> I wasn't aware of the subtle shift-by-1 semantics when converting to std::reverse_iterator (must have missed the getReverse() comment). If we go with that semantics I would need extra std::next/std::prev calls in my code anyway which doesn't make it much simpler compared to MyIterator->getReverseIterator(). Going for semantics different from STL is not a good idea IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Repository:
>>>> rL LLVM
>>>> 
>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27874
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>> 
>> 
>