Implement ranges::common_view #1305
Conversation
CaseyCarter
left a comment
CaseyCarter
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like a good start. (I find it terribly ironic that you added no tests yet the tests are not passing ;))
That is my secret superpower. I can break code just by looking at it. Reminds me when I had to rework the C-code generator of the compiler I was working on. Bugs that cancel each other out, depend on the language settings of the machine.... |
|
While merging branches you've cloned your changes and everything is defined twice. |
|
I will simply go back and rebase unto master after i fixed your comment |
Partially addresses microsoft#39
|
Rebased and removed the duplicated code |
Co-authored-by: Adam Bucior <35536269+AdamBucior@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Adam Bucior <35536269+AdamBucior@users.noreply.github.com>
CaseyCarter
left a comment
CaseyCarter
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's here looks fine - just missing test coverage. (On the bright side, common_view doesn't have custom iterator or sentinel types to test.)
|
Yeah, I started, but my kids decided that sleep is totally not worth it so I am moving at a crawl right now |
|
This is hell, I need to seriously consider to what extend we can use |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Validate view_interface::data | ||
| static_assert(!CanData<R>); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find this super troubling. If the user passes a continuous_range into common_view he will be in for a surprise
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a backwards-compatibility tool to adapt non-common_ranges into an iterator pair that can be passed to C++17 algorithms. It doesn't need to have great support for contiguous_ranges that don't exist in C++17.
* Add test to `tests/std/test.lst` * Add missing `/* strengthened */` comments for `begin`/`end`
* `constexpr` functions cannot define non-literal variables ***even inside `if (!is_constant_evaluated())`***. Factor pertinent bits out of `test_one` into a `non_literal_parts` that's called inside `if (!is_constant_evaluated())`. (This language 🤷.)
miscco
force-pushed
the
common_view
branch
3 times, most recently
from
d0a3ed7 to
865fa91
Compare
|
Could I get an "thumbs up" / "looks ok" / "burn it with fire" regarding the I am currently inclined to simply revert it, So I did not yet spend time debugging build failure |
StephanTLavavej
left a comment
StephanTLavavej
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good! I will fix one typo.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Thanks for your contribution! |
4 participants
Partially addresses #39
Currently a WIP as testing views is just wonderfully hard