[SUGGESTION] Add the equivalent of C++23 "deducing this"

[bluetarpmedia]

For the same motivations as in P0847, I'd like to be able to write the equivalent of the "deducing this" feature in Cpp2.

Here's one example where the feature would prevent duplicating code:

my_optional: <T> type = {
    has_value: bool = false;
    value:     T;

    get: (in this)    -> forward T = { assert(has_value); return value; }  // return const-ref
    get: (inout this) -> forward T = { assert(has_value); return value; }  // return mutable-ref
    get: (move this)  -> move    T = { assert(has_value); return value; }
}

Instead I'd like to write the get function once, with some kind of equivalent "deducing this" syntax that takes care of the this parameter and also the return type, e.g. along the lines of:

get: <Self>(Self _ this) -> _ = { assert(has_value); return value; }

The lowered C++ could duplicate the functions if it's targeting C++20, since the C++23 "deducing this" syntax won't be available.

If, in the future, cppfront supports some kind of cpp_standard flag (like proposed in #942) then the lowered code for C++23 could use the real "deducing this" feature.

Will your feature suggestion eliminate X% of security vulnerabilities of a given kind in current C++ code?
No

Will your feature suggestion automate or eliminate X% of current C++ guidance literature?
Yes, in the same way that "deducing this" does for C++.

[SebastianTroy]

Instead of making special syntax, would get: (forward this) -> forward T = {...} Work instead? On 1 August 2024 07:43:48 Neil Henderson ***@***.***> wrote: For the same motivations as in P0847<https://wg21.link/p0847>, I'd like to be able to write the equivalent of the "deducing this" feature in Cpp2. Here's one example where the feature would prevent duplicating code: my_optional: <T> type = { has_value: bool = false; value: T; get: (in this) -> forward T = { assert(has_value); return value; } // return const-ref get: (inout this) -> forward T = { assert(has_value); return value; } // return mutable-ref get: (move this) -> move T = { assert(has_value); return value; } } Instead I'd like to write the get function once, with some kind of equivalent "deducing this" syntax that takes care of the this parameter and also the return type, e.g. along the lines of: get: <Self>(Self _ this) -> _ = { assert(has_value); return value; } The lowered C++ could duplicate the functions if it's targeting C++20, since the C++23 "deducing this" syntax won't be available. If, in the future, cppfront supports some kind of cpp_standard flag (like proposed in #942<#942>) then the lowered code for C++23 could use the real "deducing this" feature. Will your feature suggestion eliminate X% of security vulnerabilities of a given kind in current C++ code? No Will your feature suggestion automate or eliminate X% of current C++ guidance literature? Yes, in the same way that "deducing this" does for C++. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1197>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALUZQJCH6Z2XOHDTYCBARTZPHKKDAVCNFSM6AAAAABLZ4LXS2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQ2DCNRSGEZDGMA>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bluetarpmedia]

Instead of making special syntax, would get: (forward this) -> forward T = {...} Work instead?

Absolutely, I don't mind what the syntax is, as long as it can lower either to C++23 deducing this or C++20 manually stamping out the variations.

Here's another idea:

get: (deducing this) -> _ = {...}

😆

[dutkalex]

@bluetarpmedia Just to be sure: are you saying that we can't use the "deducing this" feature as of now, or are you just advocating for a more direct and explicit syntax to ease the use of the feature?

Btw, I really like your proposed syntax. It doesn't get more explicit than that 😂

get: (deducing this) -> _ = {...}

[bluetarpmedia]

Just to be sure: are you saying that we can't use the "deducing this" feature as of now, or are you just advocating for a more direct and explicit syntax to ease the use of the feature?

Currently cppfront lowers to C++20 so to the best of my knowledge there's no way to write Cpp2 that emits the C++23 "deducing this" feature, nor emits the various overloads to simulate it in C++20.

[hsutter]

What we did for "\x{62}" literals was to enable authoring them in Cpp2, but they would only work if your Cpp1 compiler supported them. If we keep doing this there'll need to be some documentation about what's supported and/or possibly a -std= switch to diagnose uses of things not supported in that mode.

[zaucy]

I think the syntax for explicit object parameter (deducing this) could simply be used whenever this has an explicit type.

example: (this: Something) -> void = { ... }

lowered to

void example(this Something const& cpp2_self, int i) { ... }

Then any use of this. could lowered to cpp2_self. inside a function using "explicit this". Maybe even require this. for these functions?

As for detection we could simply use the feature-test macro __cpp_explicit_this_parameter at the top of the file if there is any use of "explicit this".

[AbhinavK00]

What I have is more of a question. As far as I understand, the deduplication of cpp code due to deducing this is because we can do perfect forwarding with the 'this' parameter.
In cpp2, we use the 'forward' passing convention to do forwarding. So why does the following not work/what is the difference in behavior

get: (forward this) -> forward T = {...}

[hsutter]

Thanks for the suggestions!

For a this parameter, Cpp2 currently disallows exactly (a) forward and (b) an explicit type... and yes, it sure does seem like that may be exactly the design space needed for deducing this? That's quite a convergence! -- I didn't pay close attention to the deducing-this feature's progress, and didn't design the Cpp2 restrictions on this with it in mind.

It's easy enough to still allow code in the function body to consistently write this to refer to the parameter, even if we emit it as this_ or self under the covers to satisfy Cpp1 requirements in C++23.

Here's an adaptation of the first two examples from cppreference, which I think covers the core use cases...

// C++23
//
struct X {
    template<typename Self>
    void foo(this Self&& self, int) {
        do_something_with( self );
    }
};

struct D : X {};
 
void ex(X& x, D& d) {
    x.foo(1);       // Self = X&
    move(x).foo(2); // Self = X
    d.foo(3);       // Self = D&
}

Note that Cpp2 already makes forward parameters be implicit templates, so something like this seems natural? In addition, unlike Cpp1, this would also std::forward<Self>(self) from the last use to preserve the cv-qualification and value category of this object.

// Possible Cpp2?
//
X: @struct type = {
    foo: (forward this) = {
        do_something_with( this );
    }
};

D: type = {
    this: X;
}

ex: (inout x: X, inout d: D) = {
    x.foo(1);       // typeof(this) = X&
    move(x).foo(2); // typeof(this) = X
    d.foo(3);       // typeof(this) = D&
}

Something like that, perhaps?

[hsutter]

The above would just allow forward this to have this meaning, and doesn't yet allow actually specifying a type. Are there any examples not covered by the above that would also require specifying a type for a this parameter?

Update to answer my own question: Yes, forward this: specific_type would be a reasonable thing to do, and that type should be limited to being the enclosing type's name, I think.

[bluetarpmedia]

This (no pun intended) sounds promising! One thing I'm wondering about is a function that returns auto&& in C++. For example, how would we write the Cpp2 to emit the following example from Sy Brand's blog post?

template <class Self>
constexpr auto&& value(this Self&& self) {
    if (self.has_value()) {
        return std::forward<Self>(self).m_value;
    }
    throw bad_optional_access();  // Ignore this part
}

I think this function signature would work for constexpr and returning auto&&:

value: (forward this) -> forward _ == { ... }

But how would we write the equivalent for this line?

return std::forward<Self>(self).m_value;

Would it be the following?

return this.m_value;

[JohelEGP]

The above would just allow forward this to have this meaning, and doesn't yet allow actually specifying a type. Are there any examples not covered by the above that would also require specifying a type for a this parameter?

Yes.
It can be useful to use pass the (possibly derived) deduced type to std::forward_like.
The paper, P0847, has an example.

template <typename F>
auto not_fn(F&& f) {
    return [f=forward<F>(f)](this auto&& self, auto&&.. args)
        BOOST_HOF_RETURNS(
            !invoke(
                forward_like<decltype(self)>(f),
                forward<decltype(args)>(args)...))
        ;
}

not_fn: (forward f) =
  :<Self> (forward this: Self, forward args...) =
    BOOST_HOF_RETURNS(!invoke(forward_like<Self>(f$), args...));

The main branch already knows that the type-id Self names a template parameter,
so it can known this is in fact a forwarding parameter.
Although that doesn't seem to be currently rejected (see https://cpp2.godbolt.org/z/vr63W6e46).

Update to answer my own question: Yes, forward this: specific_type would be a reasonable thing to do, and that type should be limited to being the enclosing type's name, I think.

This is very similar to #572 (comment).
It seems like deducing this already allows you to place this's type: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p0847r7.html#sfinae-friendly-callables.
There might be a conflict by using forward this for deducing this if Cpp1 gets the other feature.

[JohelEGP]

I've always wanted this.
I first mentioned it at 4bd0c04#commitcomment-133307333.
The second comment has an implementation that errors when deducing this isn't supported (on use of this).

A quirk with a deducing this Cpp2 forward this parameter
is that, suddenly, you need to this.-qualify uses of members.
The need isn't as apparent in the Cpp2 syntax as in the Cpp1 syntax.
Is it the lack of an explicit name like in Cpp1 (conventionally self)?

[JohelEGP]

Deducing this also allows declaring the object parameter by-copy.
From https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p0847r7.html#by-value-member-functions-for-performance:

template <class charT, class traits = char_traits<charT>>
class basic_string_view {
private:
    const_pointer data_;
    size_type size_;
public:
    constexpr const_iterator begin(this basic_string_view self) {
        return self.data_;
    }

    constexpr const_iterator end(this basic_string_view self) {
        return self.data_ + self.size_;
    }

    constexpr size_t size(this basic_string_view self) {
        return self.size_;
    }

    constexpr const_reference operator[](this basic_string_view self, size_type pos) {
        return self.data_[pos];
    }
};

We could also allow a copy this parameter to mean that by lowering to Cpp1 this current_type self.
But what if you also want the forward this semantics above?
Do we add forward_copy for that?

[JohelEGP]

Update to answer my own question: Yes, forward this: specific_type would be a reasonable thing to do, and that type should be limited to being the enclosing type's name, I think.

This is very similar to #572 (comment).
It seems like deducing this already allows you to place this's type: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p0847r7.html#sfinae-friendly-callables.
There might be a conflict by using forward this for deducing this if Cpp1 gets the other feature.

Let's be more clear.

#572 (comment) says that the current main branch implements from P2481:

• the fully generic part with f: (forward x: _) = { ... }, and
• the type_of constrained part with f: (forward x: of_my_type) = { ... }.

Today's f: (forward x: of_my_type) = { ... } only requires convertibility to of_my_type.
The part of P2481 cppfront doesn't (yet) implement is making x be of_my_type.
Including f: (forward x: std::variant) = { ... } deducing from derived types but converting to the std::variant base.

For P0847 (deducing this, explicit object member functions),
Herb proposes the natural spelling of mem: (forward this).

Now, where both of these features would meet is in mem: (forward this: of_my_type).
It seems to me that both P2481 and P0847 would give it the same meaning.
P2481 would make this's type be of_my_type, deducing constness and reference, accepting derived types.
P0847 would do the same, and an explicit object parameters accepts derived type conversions as usual.

If I'm analyzing this right, these features are not actually in conflict.
So sharing the same syntax (i.e., when a forward parameter is for this) should be fine.

[JohelEGP]

We could also allow a copy this parameter to mean that by lowering to Cpp1 this current_type self.
But what if you also want the forward this semantics above?
Do we add forward_copy for that?

Actually, forward_copy doesn't make sense.

But both copy and forward this parameters share behavior from P0847.

• They need to be implemented with Cpp1 explicit object parameters.
  • Their use will require explicit this. qualification.
• They need to allow specifying a type other than current_type.

• f: (copy this) = { ... } should be made to work.
• f: (copy this: derived_type) = { ... } should be made to work (https://cpp2.godbolt.org/z/oMjPbv3ro).
• f: (forward this) = { ... } should be made to work (forwarding parameter to current_type).
• f: (forward this: _) = { ... } should be made to work (generic forwarding parameter).

Additionally, from P2481:

• f: (forward this-or-name: X) = { ... } should be made to work, coercing the argument to an X.

What we already have from P2481 (as Cpp2 features):

• f: (forward name: _) = { ... } itself.
• f: (forward name: specific_type) = { ... } as something close to
  f: (forward name: _ is std::convertible_to<specific_type>) = { ... }.
  Although I'm wary of how it's currently implemented.

Combining these two features, we get:

• f: (forward this: derived_type) = { ... }.