Why does lambda auto& parameter choose const overload?C++ error in ios_base.hWhy does changing 0.1f to 0...
Slow moving projectiles from a hand-held weapon - how do they reach the target?
If I delete my router's history can my ISP still provide it to my parents?
How to prevent cleaner from hanging my lock screen in Ubuntu 16.04
Citing paywalled articles accessed via illegal web sharing
Process to change collation on a database
How should I handle players who ignore the session zero agreement?
Can I become debt free or should I file for bankruptcy? How do I manage my debt and finances?
Is it a fallacy if someone claims they need an explanation for every word of your argument to the point where they don't understand common terms?
Am I a Rude Number?
Would a National Army of mercenaries be a feasible idea?
What's the most convenient time of year to end the world?
How to convert a ListContourPlot into primitive usable with Graphics3D?
Why does String.replaceAll() work differently in Java 8 from Java 9?
What makes the Forgotten Realms "forgotten"?
Can an insurance company drop you after receiving a bill and refusing to pay?
Can a dragon be stuck looking like a human?
What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?
Disable the ">" operator in Rstudio linux terminal
Is there any differences between "Gucken" and "Schauen"?
How do I say "Brexit" in Latin?
Strange Sign on Lab Door
why a subspace is closed?
How can animals be objects of ethics without being subjects as well?
Why do members of Congress in committee hearings ask witnesses the same question multiple times?
Why does lambda auto& parameter choose const overload?
C++ error in ios_base.hWhy does changing 0.1f to 0 slow down performance by 10x?error while working with boost::sregex_token_iteratorCalling member's overloaded << operator in C++Why does outputting a class with a conversion operator not work for std::string?Use boost bind to output map dataGetting very long “No match for 'operator+'” error in C++Using my custom iterator with stl algorithmsWhy does my program run fine on Windows but not linux?what does compiler when operator<<(std::basic_ostream) overloaded as friend
I'm trying to implement a class which wraps an arbitrary type and a mutex. To access the wrapped data, one needs to pass a functor as parameter of the locked
method. The wrapper class will then pass the wrapped data as parameter to the functor.
I'd like my wrapper class to work with const & non-const, so I tried the following
#include <mutex>
#include <string>
template<typename T, typename Mutex = std::mutex>
class Mutexed
{
private:
T m_data;
mutable Mutex m_mutex;
public:
using type = T;
using mutex_type = Mutex;
public:
explicit Mutexed() = default;
template<typename... Args>
explicit Mutexed(Args&&... args)
: m_data{std::forward<Args>(args)...}
{}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) const -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
};
int main()
{
Mutexed<std::string> str{"Foo"};
str.locked([](auto &s) { /* this doesn't compile */
s = "Bar";
});
str.locked([](std::string& s) { /* this compiles fine */
s = "Baz";
});
return 0;
}
The first locked
call with the generic lambda fails to compile with the following error
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp: In instantiation of ‘main()::<lambda(auto:1&)> [with auto:1 = const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>]’:
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:30:60: required by substitution of ‘template<class F> decltype (forward<F>(f)(((const Mutexed<T, Mutex>*)this)->Mutexed<T, Mutex>::m_data)) Mutexed<T, Mutex>::locked(F&&) const [with F = main()::<lambda(auto:1&)>]’
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:42:6: required from here
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:41:11: error: passing ‘const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
s = "Bar";
^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/5/string:52:0,
from /usr/include/c++/5/stdexcept:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/array:38,
from /usr/include/c++/5/tuple:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/mutex:38,
from /home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/5/bits/basic_string.h:558:7: note: in call to ‘std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>& std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::operator=(const _CharT*) [with _CharT = char; _Traits = std::char_traits<char>; _Alloc = std::allocator<char>]’
operator=(const _CharT* __s)
^
But the second call with the std::string&
parameter is fine.
Why is that ? And is there a way to make it work as expected while using a generic lambda ?
c++ templates c++14 generic-lambda
add a comment |
I'm trying to implement a class which wraps an arbitrary type and a mutex. To access the wrapped data, one needs to pass a functor as parameter of the locked
method. The wrapper class will then pass the wrapped data as parameter to the functor.
I'd like my wrapper class to work with const & non-const, so I tried the following
#include <mutex>
#include <string>
template<typename T, typename Mutex = std::mutex>
class Mutexed
{
private:
T m_data;
mutable Mutex m_mutex;
public:
using type = T;
using mutex_type = Mutex;
public:
explicit Mutexed() = default;
template<typename... Args>
explicit Mutexed(Args&&... args)
: m_data{std::forward<Args>(args)...}
{}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) const -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
};
int main()
{
Mutexed<std::string> str{"Foo"};
str.locked([](auto &s) { /* this doesn't compile */
s = "Bar";
});
str.locked([](std::string& s) { /* this compiles fine */
s = "Baz";
});
return 0;
}
The first locked
call with the generic lambda fails to compile with the following error
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp: In instantiation of ‘main()::<lambda(auto:1&)> [with auto:1 = const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>]’:
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:30:60: required by substitution of ‘template<class F> decltype (forward<F>(f)(((const Mutexed<T, Mutex>*)this)->Mutexed<T, Mutex>::m_data)) Mutexed<T, Mutex>::locked(F&&) const [with F = main()::<lambda(auto:1&)>]’
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:42:6: required from here
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:41:11: error: passing ‘const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
s = "Bar";
^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/5/string:52:0,
from /usr/include/c++/5/stdexcept:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/array:38,
from /usr/include/c++/5/tuple:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/mutex:38,
from /home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/5/bits/basic_string.h:558:7: note: in call to ‘std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>& std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::operator=(const _CharT*) [with _CharT = char; _Traits = std::char_traits<char>; _Alloc = std::allocator<char>]’
operator=(const _CharT* __s)
^
But the second call with the std::string&
parameter is fine.
Why is that ? And is there a way to make it work as expected while using a generic lambda ?
c++ templates c++14 generic-lambda
@YSC A lambda, generic or otherwise, is a class, not a class template.F
is happily resolved to that class. The fact that the class has member templates is irrelevant at that point.
– Igor Tandetnik
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm trying to implement a class which wraps an arbitrary type and a mutex. To access the wrapped data, one needs to pass a functor as parameter of the locked
method. The wrapper class will then pass the wrapped data as parameter to the functor.
I'd like my wrapper class to work with const & non-const, so I tried the following
#include <mutex>
#include <string>
template<typename T, typename Mutex = std::mutex>
class Mutexed
{
private:
T m_data;
mutable Mutex m_mutex;
public:
using type = T;
using mutex_type = Mutex;
public:
explicit Mutexed() = default;
template<typename... Args>
explicit Mutexed(Args&&... args)
: m_data{std::forward<Args>(args)...}
{}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) const -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
};
int main()
{
Mutexed<std::string> str{"Foo"};
str.locked([](auto &s) { /* this doesn't compile */
s = "Bar";
});
str.locked([](std::string& s) { /* this compiles fine */
s = "Baz";
});
return 0;
}
The first locked
call with the generic lambda fails to compile with the following error
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp: In instantiation of ‘main()::<lambda(auto:1&)> [with auto:1 = const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>]’:
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:30:60: required by substitution of ‘template<class F> decltype (forward<F>(f)(((const Mutexed<T, Mutex>*)this)->Mutexed<T, Mutex>::m_data)) Mutexed<T, Mutex>::locked(F&&) const [with F = main()::<lambda(auto:1&)>]’
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:42:6: required from here
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:41:11: error: passing ‘const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
s = "Bar";
^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/5/string:52:0,
from /usr/include/c++/5/stdexcept:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/array:38,
from /usr/include/c++/5/tuple:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/mutex:38,
from /home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/5/bits/basic_string.h:558:7: note: in call to ‘std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>& std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::operator=(const _CharT*) [with _CharT = char; _Traits = std::char_traits<char>; _Alloc = std::allocator<char>]’
operator=(const _CharT* __s)
^
But the second call with the std::string&
parameter is fine.
Why is that ? And is there a way to make it work as expected while using a generic lambda ?
c++ templates c++14 generic-lambda
I'm trying to implement a class which wraps an arbitrary type and a mutex. To access the wrapped data, one needs to pass a functor as parameter of the locked
method. The wrapper class will then pass the wrapped data as parameter to the functor.
I'd like my wrapper class to work with const & non-const, so I tried the following
#include <mutex>
#include <string>
template<typename T, typename Mutex = std::mutex>
class Mutexed
{
private:
T m_data;
mutable Mutex m_mutex;
public:
using type = T;
using mutex_type = Mutex;
public:
explicit Mutexed() = default;
template<typename... Args>
explicit Mutexed(Args&&... args)
: m_data{std::forward<Args>(args)...}
{}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
template<typename F>
auto locked(F&& f) const -> decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data)) {
std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock(m_mutex);
return std::forward<F>(f)(m_data);
}
};
int main()
{
Mutexed<std::string> str{"Foo"};
str.locked([](auto &s) { /* this doesn't compile */
s = "Bar";
});
str.locked([](std::string& s) { /* this compiles fine */
s = "Baz";
});
return 0;
}
The first locked
call with the generic lambda fails to compile with the following error
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp: In instantiation of ‘main()::<lambda(auto:1&)> [with auto:1 = const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>]’:
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:30:60: required by substitution of ‘template<class F> decltype (forward<F>(f)(((const Mutexed<T, Mutex>*)this)->Mutexed<T, Mutex>::m_data)) Mutexed<T, Mutex>::locked(F&&) const [with F = main()::<lambda(auto:1&)>]’
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:42:6: required from here
/home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:41:11: error: passing ‘const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
s = "Bar";
^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/5/string:52:0,
from /usr/include/c++/5/stdexcept:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/array:38,
from /usr/include/c++/5/tuple:39,
from /usr/include/c++/5/mutex:38,
from /home/foo/tests/lamdba_auto_const/lambda_auto_const/main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/5/bits/basic_string.h:558:7: note: in call to ‘std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>& std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::operator=(const _CharT*) [with _CharT = char; _Traits = std::char_traits<char>; _Alloc = std::allocator<char>]’
operator=(const _CharT* __s)
^
But the second call with the std::string&
parameter is fine.
Why is that ? And is there a way to make it work as expected while using a generic lambda ?
c++ templates c++14 generic-lambda
c++ templates c++14 generic-lambda
asked 15 hours ago
UndaUnda
1,21031927
1,21031927
@YSC A lambda, generic or otherwise, is a class, not a class template.F
is happily resolved to that class. The fact that the class has member templates is irrelevant at that point.
– Igor Tandetnik
14 hours ago
add a comment |
@YSC A lambda, generic or otherwise, is a class, not a class template.F
is happily resolved to that class. The fact that the class has member templates is irrelevant at that point.
– Igor Tandetnik
14 hours ago
@YSC A lambda, generic or otherwise, is a class, not a class template.
F
is happily resolved to that class. The fact that the class has member templates is irrelevant at that point.– Igor Tandetnik
14 hours ago
@YSC A lambda, generic or otherwise, is a class, not a class template.
F
is happily resolved to that class. The fact that the class has member templates is irrelevant at that point.– Igor Tandetnik
14 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is a problem fundamentally with what happens with SFINAE-unfriendly callables. For more reference, check out P0826.
The problem is, when you call this:
str.locked([](auto &s) { s = "Bar"; });
We have two overloads of locked
and we have to try both. The non-const
overload works fine. But the const
one – even if it won't be selected by overload resolution anyway – still has to be instantiated (it's a generic lambda, so to figure out what decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data))
might be you have to instantiate it) and that instantiation fails within the body of the lambda. The body is outside of the immediate context, so it's not a substitution failure – it's a hard error.
When you call this:
str.locked([](std::string& s) { s = "Bar"; });
We don't need to look at the body at all during the whole process of overload resolution – we can simply reject at the call site (since you can't pass a const string
into a string&
).
There's not really a solution to this problem in the language today – you basically have to add constraints on your lambda to ensure that the instantiation failure happens in the immediate context of substitution rather than in the body. Something like:
str.locked([](auto &s) -> decltype(s = std::string(), void()) {
s = "Bar";
});
A more thorough language solution would have been to allow for "Deducing this
" (see the section in the paper about this specific problem). But that won't be in C++20.
5
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of usingauto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.
– Unda
14 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as anauto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?
– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
1
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it likelocked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.
– Barry
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54947560%2fwhy-does-lambda-auto-parameter-choose-const-overload%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is a problem fundamentally with what happens with SFINAE-unfriendly callables. For more reference, check out P0826.
The problem is, when you call this:
str.locked([](auto &s) { s = "Bar"; });
We have two overloads of locked
and we have to try both. The non-const
overload works fine. But the const
one – even if it won't be selected by overload resolution anyway – still has to be instantiated (it's a generic lambda, so to figure out what decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data))
might be you have to instantiate it) and that instantiation fails within the body of the lambda. The body is outside of the immediate context, so it's not a substitution failure – it's a hard error.
When you call this:
str.locked([](std::string& s) { s = "Bar"; });
We don't need to look at the body at all during the whole process of overload resolution – we can simply reject at the call site (since you can't pass a const string
into a string&
).
There's not really a solution to this problem in the language today – you basically have to add constraints on your lambda to ensure that the instantiation failure happens in the immediate context of substitution rather than in the body. Something like:
str.locked([](auto &s) -> decltype(s = std::string(), void()) {
s = "Bar";
});
A more thorough language solution would have been to allow for "Deducing this
" (see the section in the paper about this specific problem). But that won't be in C++20.
5
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of usingauto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.
– Unda
14 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as anauto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?
– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
1
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it likelocked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.
– Barry
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
This is a problem fundamentally with what happens with SFINAE-unfriendly callables. For more reference, check out P0826.
The problem is, when you call this:
str.locked([](auto &s) { s = "Bar"; });
We have two overloads of locked
and we have to try both. The non-const
overload works fine. But the const
one – even if it won't be selected by overload resolution anyway – still has to be instantiated (it's a generic lambda, so to figure out what decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data))
might be you have to instantiate it) and that instantiation fails within the body of the lambda. The body is outside of the immediate context, so it's not a substitution failure – it's a hard error.
When you call this:
str.locked([](std::string& s) { s = "Bar"; });
We don't need to look at the body at all during the whole process of overload resolution – we can simply reject at the call site (since you can't pass a const string
into a string&
).
There's not really a solution to this problem in the language today – you basically have to add constraints on your lambda to ensure that the instantiation failure happens in the immediate context of substitution rather than in the body. Something like:
str.locked([](auto &s) -> decltype(s = std::string(), void()) {
s = "Bar";
});
A more thorough language solution would have been to allow for "Deducing this
" (see the section in the paper about this specific problem). But that won't be in C++20.
5
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of usingauto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.
– Unda
14 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as anauto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?
– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
1
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it likelocked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.
– Barry
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
This is a problem fundamentally with what happens with SFINAE-unfriendly callables. For more reference, check out P0826.
The problem is, when you call this:
str.locked([](auto &s) { s = "Bar"; });
We have two overloads of locked
and we have to try both. The non-const
overload works fine. But the const
one – even if it won't be selected by overload resolution anyway – still has to be instantiated (it's a generic lambda, so to figure out what decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data))
might be you have to instantiate it) and that instantiation fails within the body of the lambda. The body is outside of the immediate context, so it's not a substitution failure – it's a hard error.
When you call this:
str.locked([](std::string& s) { s = "Bar"; });
We don't need to look at the body at all during the whole process of overload resolution – we can simply reject at the call site (since you can't pass a const string
into a string&
).
There's not really a solution to this problem in the language today – you basically have to add constraints on your lambda to ensure that the instantiation failure happens in the immediate context of substitution rather than in the body. Something like:
str.locked([](auto &s) -> decltype(s = std::string(), void()) {
s = "Bar";
});
A more thorough language solution would have been to allow for "Deducing this
" (see the section in the paper about this specific problem). But that won't be in C++20.
This is a problem fundamentally with what happens with SFINAE-unfriendly callables. For more reference, check out P0826.
The problem is, when you call this:
str.locked([](auto &s) { s = "Bar"; });
We have two overloads of locked
and we have to try both. The non-const
overload works fine. But the const
one – even if it won't be selected by overload resolution anyway – still has to be instantiated (it's a generic lambda, so to figure out what decltype(std::forward<F>(f)(m_data))
might be you have to instantiate it) and that instantiation fails within the body of the lambda. The body is outside of the immediate context, so it's not a substitution failure – it's a hard error.
When you call this:
str.locked([](std::string& s) { s = "Bar"; });
We don't need to look at the body at all during the whole process of overload resolution – we can simply reject at the call site (since you can't pass a const string
into a string&
).
There's not really a solution to this problem in the language today – you basically have to add constraints on your lambda to ensure that the instantiation failure happens in the immediate context of substitution rather than in the body. Something like:
str.locked([](auto &s) -> decltype(s = std::string(), void()) {
s = "Bar";
});
A more thorough language solution would have been to allow for "Deducing this
" (see the section in the paper about this specific problem). But that won't be in C++20.
edited 13 hours ago
Baum mit Augen
41.3k12118154
41.3k12118154
answered 14 hours ago
BarryBarry
183k21319584
183k21319584
5
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of usingauto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.
– Unda
14 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as anauto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?
– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
1
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it likelocked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.
– Barry
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
5
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of usingauto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.
– Unda
14 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as anauto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?
– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
1
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it likelocked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.
– Barry
8 hours ago
5
5
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Well this is a shame. +1 as this had me really scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why it was calling the const version, and as you point out it really isn't, it just has to check, and the check results in a hard error.
– NathanOliver
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for this explanation. Could you elaborate on "The body is outside of the immediate context" a bit though? (I'm unclear of what exactly is the immediate context)
– YSC
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of using
auto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.– Unda
14 hours ago
Thank you for the explanation and the workaround. It works, but since it's more verbose than writing the type, I'll do that instead of using
auto
for this case. I'll check out the paper too.– Unda
14 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as an
auto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
Would it work if you took the parameter as an
auto&&
parameter (though then you can pass rvalues, which you don't really want to allow)?– Nicol Bolas
12 hours ago
1
1
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it like
locked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.– Barry
8 hours ago
@Unda Yeah, if you want to call it like
locked(str, []{...})
instead. Just changes the syntax.– Barry
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54947560%2fwhy-does-lambda-auto-parameter-choose-const-overload%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@YSC A lambda, generic or otherwise, is a class, not a class template.
F
is happily resolved to that class. The fact that the class has member templates is irrelevant at that point.– Igor Tandetnik
14 hours ago