On 1/28/11 8:12 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-01-28 20:10:06 -0500, "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> said:
Unfortunately, this design has big issues:
void fill(Appender appender)
{
appender.put("hello");
appender.put("world");
}
void test()
{
Appender<string> appender;
fill(appender); // Appender is supposed to have reference semantics
assert(appender.length != 0); // fails!
}
Asserting above fails because at the time you pass appender object to
the fill method it isn't initialized yet (lazy initialization). As
such, a null is passed, creating an instance at first appending, but
the result isn't seen to the caller.
That's indeed a problem. I don't think it's a fatal flaw however, given
that the idiom already exists in AAs.
That said, the nice thing about my proposal is that you can easily reuse
the Impl to create a new container to build a new container wrapper with
the semantics you like with no loss of efficiency.
As for the case of Appender... personally in the case above I'd be
tempted to use Appender.Impl directly (value semantics) and make fill
take a 'ref'. There's no point in having an extra heap allocation,
especially if you're calling test() in a loop or if there's a good
chance fill() has nothing to append to it.
That's the issue with containers. The optimal semantics always change
depending on the use case.
Yep, yep, I found myself wrestling with the same issues. All good
points. On one hand containers are a target for optimization because
many will use them. On the other hand you'd want to have reasonably
simple and idiomatic code in the container implementation because you
want people to understand them easily and also to write their own. I
thought for a while of a layered approach in which you'd have both the
value and the sealed reference version of a container... it's just too
much aggravation.
An explicit initialization is needed to work around this design issue.
The worst thing is that in many cases it would work fine (you might
have already initialized it indirectly) but sometimes you get
unexpected result. I got hit by this in past, and it wasn't easy to
trace down.
As such, I strongly believe containers either need to have copy
semantics, or be classes. However, copy semantics contradicts with the
"cheap copy ctor" idiom because you need to copy all the elements from
source container.
Personally, I'm really concerned by the case where you have a container
of containers. Class semantics make things really complicated as you
always have to initialize everything in the container explicitly; value
semantics makes things semantically easier but quite inefficient as
moving elements inside of the outermost container implies copying the
containers. Making containers auto-initialize themselves on first use
solves the case where containers are references-types; making containers
capable of using move semantics solves the problem for value-type
containers.
Neither values nor references are perfect indeed. For example, someone
mentioned, hey, in STL I write set< vector<double> > and it Just
Works(tm). On the other hand, if you swap the two names it still seems
to work but it's awfully inefficient (something that may trip even
experienced developers).
Andrei
