[QUESTION] how to express this code in CppFront (is it possible)?

[germandiagogomez]

Hello community,

I am trying to translate this piece of C++ code into Cppfront:

template<class AssocContainer, class Func = std::plus<>>
void
combine_maps(AssocContainer& map1, const AssocContainer& map2, Func func = {})
{
    for (const auto& [k, v] : map2)
        map1[k] = func(map1[k], v);
}

And I tried this:

combine_maps:<AssocContainer, Func: type = std::plus<>>(inout map1: AssocContainer, map2: AssocContainer, func: Func = ()) = {
    for map2 do(kv) {
        map1[kv.first] = func(map1[kv.first], kv.second);
    }
}

My questions are simple:

1. is there a way to default the template parameter to std::plus<> as in plain C++?
2. is there a way to bind key and value in Cpp2 in a similar way to a structured binding? Maybe with pattern matching of some kind?
3. can I default func: Func = () parameter? It seems to emit code where there is const Func & func = <empty here>

Thank you for your time and support to everyone.

[MaxSagebaum]

Default arguments are currently not supported in cppfront. But Herb plans on doing so. Until then one would currently write:

combine_maps:<AssocContainer>(inout map1: AssocContainer, map2: AssocContainer, func) = {
    for map2 do(kv) {
        map1[kv.first] = func(map1[kv.first], kv.second);
    }
}

combine_maps:<AssocContainer>(inout map1: AssocContainer, map2: AssocContainer) = combine_maps(map1, map2, std::plus<>());

I currently can not say anything about the structured binding. But this is probably also on the todo list.

[DyXel]

Default arguments are currently not supported in cppfront. But Herb plans on doing so.

This was already done as part of: https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/commit/873b760ae0f4a07efa73973b729bf0f20aa9661b, so I think this is just a bug, although the C++ version is taking func by value, so maybe try copy passing style in Cpp2 version?

[germandiagogomez]

@MaxSagebaum another question and struggle I keep having about syntax (that you used):

Is the syntax below valid cpp2?

f(std::plus<>())

For what I read in the docs I would assume that no. To create a temporary (that is a function call in theory I assume and initialization and function calls seem to have disjoint syntax in cpp2), you should do the following:

f(:std::plus<> = ())

Is my assumption correct?

[MaxSagebaum]

This was already done as part of: https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/commit/873b760ae0f4a07efa73973b729bf0f20aa9661b, so I think this is just a bug, although the C++ version is taking func by value, so maybe try copy passing style in Cpp2 version?

Ah ok, my bet.

Is the syntax below valid cpp2?

f(std::plus<>())

Yes you are just creating an object via the constructor call and then call the function f. What you have written would be kind of the definition syntax for f but here the placeholder for the variable is missing: f(_ : std::plus<> = ()) = { ... }. So you have an unnamed variable. which is of the type std::plus<>.

Does this answer your question?

[germandiagogomez]

Yes you are just creating an object via the constructor call and then call the function f

In C++ yes, what I am not sure is if that is valid Cppfront syntax for temporary construction, as far as I understand, and assuming the grammar is context-free, std::plus<>() would be ambiguous from a context-free grammar point of view.

So correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I believe to know so far:

this_is_always_a_function_call();

// That would be a constructor in C++, but in CppFront a function call also.
// Otherwise, the grammar is not context-free anymore
std::plus<>(); 

// This is a constructor indeed, for a temporary
:std::plus<> = ();

I do not see anywhere (and had compile errors I recall) where you can use function syntax to initialize a variable via a constructor. But I might be wrong and have missed something. I read all the docs for CppFront twice.

[MaxSagebaum]

You might be right that this is per se not context free. But it is currently working. The current disambiguation rules I do not know by heart but I think cppfront uses the following:

• Matching < and > parse as template. If there is an intermediate < or > throw an error and remark about the disambiguation by using brackets e.g. my_template<(a>b)> instead of my_templateb>`.
• A non matching < or > is parsed as the operator.

@hsutter: Is this correct. Maybe we should add it to the documentation.

@MaxSagebaum not sure if you are following what I meant, actually it was not about the template parameters ambiguity. What is ambiguous is this syntax (in case it is allowed in CppFront the first thing):

MyType()
// versus
MyFunction()

In order to know that the first is a constructor call and not a function call, I need to know that MyType is a type and not a function, so I need to access the symbols table. My understanding is that this is why Cppfront has this syntax for temporary objects (and different from functions syntax):

:MyType = ();

That is unambiguously initializing an object. As it can be seen it does not overlap the call syntax (it has an equals sign in-between the parameter list and the type) and you do not need to know if your symbol is a type or a function, so you do not need to disambiguate. You know by the syntax only it initializes a type.

I wanted to confirm if your std::plus<>() syntax created an object in Cppfront as per the spec (actually it could work by accident). If this is the case, then the grammar is not context-free.

But I do not really care if it is context-free or not, just if it is legal creating an object without = in yhe middle as if it looked like a function call.

[DyXel]

The reason that std::plus<>(); (without the :) is allowed, is merely a limitation of cppfront not being able to tell between a type and a function. The lowered output to C++ happens to work because C++ compilers are smart enough to disambiguate the 2 cases. In a stand-alone Cpp2 compiler (not transpiler) I believe std::plus<>(); like this would error out.

[germandiagogomez]

The reason that std::plus<>(); (without the :) is allowed, is merely a limitation of cppfront not being able to tell between a type and a function. The lowered output to C++ happens to work because C++ compilers are smart enough to disambiguate the 2 cases. In a stand-alone Cpp2 compiler (not transpiler) I believe std::plus<>(); like this would error out.

Ok, this was my thesis also. So the correct syntax is the unambiguous.

[hsutter]

Thanks! I see there were still some bugs here, and I have a PR ready that will fix those.

---

Re questions 1 and 3: With the above-linked PR, you can write this:

combine_maps:
    < AssocContainer, Func: type = std::plus<> >
    ( inout map1: AssocContainer, map2: AssocContainer, func: Func = () )
= {
    for map2 do(kv) {
        map1[kv.first] = func(map1[kv.first], kv.second);
    }
}

main: () = {
    m1: std::map<int, int> = ();
    m1[1] = 11;

    m2: std::map<int, int> = ();
    m2[1] = 22;

    combine_maps( m1, m2, :(x,y) x+y+33 );

    std::cout << "(m1.size())$, (m2.size())$, (m1[1])$\n";  // prints: 1, 1, 66
}

I just haven't committed PR #1262 directly yet because I want to keep these changes out of the way of re-rebasing #1250. Once #1250 is merged, I'll merge #1262 too and your example will work out of the box. Thanks for pointing this out!

---

Re question 2: No, I haven't implemented decomposition / structured-bindings yet. It's on the list!

---

Re the question about expression-scope function and object syntax:

You can always write expression-scope functions and objects using the same syntax as always, but omit the name. For example, if T is a type, you can write the expression f( :T=value ).

The syntax f( X(value) ) also works when X is the name of an ordinary function or a type (and therefore a constructor name since a constructor is a function). X(value) is just an expression. If X is a type, the only difference between the expressions X(value) and :X=value is that they lower to Cpp1 () and {} initialization respectively.

[hsutter]

The above code now works in main. Thanks for the bug reports!

[germandiagogomez]

Thanks! I see there were still some bugs here, and I have a PR ready that will fix those.

Re questions 1 and 3: With the above-linked PR, you can write this:

combine_maps:
    < AssocContainer, Func: type = std::plus<> >
    ( inout map1: AssocContainer, map2: AssocContainer, func: Func = () )
= {
    for map2 do(kv) {
        map1[kv.first] = func(map1[kv.first], kv.second);
    }
}

main: () = {
    m1: std::map<int, int> = ();
    m1[1] = 11;

    m2: std::map<int, int> = ();
    m2[1] = 22;

    combine_maps( m1, m2, :(x,y) x+y+33 );

    std::cout << "(m1.size())$, (m2.size())$, (m1[1])$\n";  // prints: 1, 1, 66
}

Great! That is exactly what I wanted signature-wise. Thanks for your hard work.

I just haven't committed PR #1262 directly yet because I want to keep these changes out of the way of re-rebasing #1250. Once #1250 is merged, I'll merge #1262 too and your example will work out of the box. Thanks for pointing this out!

You are welcome.

Re question 2: No, I haven't implemented decomposition / structured-bindings yet. It's on the list!

The syntax f( X(value) ) also works when X is the name of an ordinary function or a type (and therefore a constructor name since a constructor is a function).X(value) is just an expression. If X is a type, the only difference between the expressions X(value) and :X=value is that they lower to Cpp1 () and {} initialization respectively.

Please confirm this so that I write proper Cpp2 then... my understanding is that std::plus<>() and :std::plus<> = () are both legal because a constructor is a function expression. This means that it is intentional and not an accident when lowering the code to C++, and both syntaxes are correct. Is that the case?

[hsutter]

Please confirm this so that I write proper Cpp2 then... my understanding is that std::plus<>() and :std::plus<> = () are both legal because a constructor is a function expression. This means that it is intentional and not an accident when lowering the code to C++, and both syntaxes are correct. Is that the case?

Correct, the only difference is () vs {} intialization in the Cpp1 code.

This Cpp2 code:

f( std::plus<>() );
f( :std::plus<> = () );

Lowers to this Cpp1 code:

f(std::plus<>());  // note: ( )
f(std::plus<>{});  // note: { }

---

Note: This particular example did expose a bug where I was checking to suppress redundant {} on expression lists everywhere except when they were empty for a default initializer... d'oh! Fixed, thanks!