www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - opApply with/without ref

reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
Hi all,

I'm experimenting with overloading foreach() with opApply, and I found
that this code doesn't compile:

	class C {
		void opApply(int delegate(uint n) cb) const {
			...
		}
	}
	unittest {
		auto c = new C;
		foreach (n; c) {
			...
		}
	}

I get this error:

Error: function intset.intset.opApply (int delegate(uint n) cb) is not
callable using argument types (int delegate(ref uint __applyArg0)  safe)

Eventually I found out that it's because the argument to the delegate
must be a ref, that is, opApply must be modified to read:

	void opApply(int delegate(ref uint n) cb) const {
		...
	}

This appears to be the case whether or not I write foreach(n; C) or
foreach(ref n; C). My question is, is this a compiler bug, or is this
intentional in the language? If the latter, why?

More to the point, I'm implementing a class which stores a set of
unsigned numbers in a compact form; I wrote an opApply() method to make
it easy to iterate over. However, the compact representation doesn't
allow arbitrary mutation to set elements. That is, the following is not
allowed:

	foreach (ref n; c) {
		n++;
	}

The problem is that this code compiles just fine, because there's no way
to say that opApply is only allowed for non-ref indices, but that it
doesn't do what it appears to say. The collection c is unchanged because
opApply() calls the delegate with a local variable: the number itself is
not actually stored in the data structure, so opApply() computes it
on-the-fly and hands it to the delegate. So modifying n in the foreach
body doesn't actually update the structure, even though it appears to.

How can I specify that only non-ref foreach loops are allowed for this
class? I thought that declaring opApply() the way I did at first (i.e.,
without the ref argument) is the correct way, but obviously the compiler
doesn't like it. (FWIW, I'm using GDC, I don't know if dmd has the same
behaviour.)


T

-- 
Lottery: tax on the stupid. -- Slashdotter
Jan 12 2012
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
H. S. Teoh:

 	void opApply(int delegate(ref uint n) cb) const {

Use "const ref":
 	void opApply(int delegate(const ref uint n) cb) const {

Bye, bearophile
Jan 13 2012
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:49:49 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  
wrote:

 Hi all,

 I'm experimenting with overloading foreach() with opApply, and I found
 that this code doesn't compile:

 	class C {
 		void opApply(int delegate(uint n) cb) const {
 			...
 		}
 	}
 	unittest {
 		auto c = new C;
 		foreach (n; c) {
 			...
 		}
 	}

 I get this error:

 Error: function intset.intset.opApply (int delegate(uint n) cb) is not
 callable using argument types (int delegate(ref uint __applyArg0)  safe)

 Eventually I found out that it's because the argument to the delegate
 must be a ref, that is, opApply must be modified to read:

 	void opApply(int delegate(ref uint n) cb) const {
 		...
 	}

 This appears to be the case whether or not I write foreach(n; C) or
 foreach(ref n; C). My question is, is this a compiler bug, or is this
 intentional in the language? If the latter, why?

It's been around for a while. It was designed that way, I think without knowing how bad it would be. Back then, there was no const, so it probably wasn't imagined how it would affect things. What the compiler does when you do foreach without a ref is transform your non-ref foreach body into a ref one (it essentially just makes a temporary copy of the ref coming in). This means if you don't actually want the data to change via foreach, you have to make an lvalue copy in your opApply, pass it to the ref delegate, which will then be copied into a local variable. It's a ridiculous workaround of D. I've filed a bug on it a long time ago (2008), I think it has been fixed in git head last December, I haven't tested it. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2443 If you feel adventurous, you could try compiling a git clone copy of dmd to see if it works. -Steve
Jan 13 2012