With this patch there should be no more namespaces without closing comment
Reviewed By: ldionne, Quuxplusone, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118668
Each "Nothing To Do" issue only changed nits in the English wording,
not anything to do with the code.
Each "Complete" issue was completed already, as far as I can tell.
I tried to err on the side of caution: I didn't mark a few issues
whose P/Rs were very invasive and would take time to verify, and I
didn't mark a lot of issues involving features we haven't even started
yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117960
The macro that opts out of `std::ranges::` functionality is called
`_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_INCOMPLETE_RANGES`, and is unrelated to this macro
which is specifically about _compiler_ support for the _syntax_.
The only non-mechanical diff here is in `<__config>`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118507
Fixed in counted_iterator and transform_view::iterator.
The LWG issue also affected elements_view::iterator, but we haven't
implemented that one yet, and whoever does implement it will get
the fix for free if they just follow the working draft's wording.
Drive-by stop calling `.base()` on test iterators in the test,
and improve the transform_view::iterator/sentinel tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117329
Clang trunk rejects the new test case, but this is a Clang bug
(PR47414, 47509, 50864, 44833).
```
In module 'std' imported from /Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.transform/general.pass.cpp:17:
/Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/build2/include/c++/v1/__ranges/transform_view.h:85:44: error: constraints not satisfied for alias template 'range_reference_t' [with _Rp = const NonConstView]
regular_invocable<const _Fn&, range_reference_t<const _View>>
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/build2/include/c++/v1/__ranges/transform_view.h:416:25: note: in instantiation of template class 'std::ranges::transform_view<NonConstView, (lambda at /Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.transform/general.pass.cpp:73:71)>' requested here
-> decltype( transform_view(_VSTD::forward<_Range>(__range), _VSTD::forward<_Fn>(__f)))
^
```
We can work around this by adding a layer of indirection: put the
problematic constraint into a named concept and Clang becomes more
amenable to SFINAE'ing instead of hard-erroring.
Drive-by simplify `range.transform/general.pass.cpp` to make it clearer
what it's actually testing in this area.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115116
The existing tests for transform_view::iterator weren't quite right,
and can be simplified now that we have more of C++20 available to us.
Having done that, let's use the same pattern for iota_view::iterator
as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110774
This patch implements the underlying mechanism for range adaptors. It
does so based on http://wg21.link/p2387, even though that paper hasn't
been adopted yet. In the future, if p2387 is adopted, it would suffice
to rename `__bind_back` to `std::bind_back` and `__range_adaptor_closure`
to `std::range_adaptor_closure` to implement that paper by the spec.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107098
We've been forgetting to add those to most of the <ranges> review.
To avoid forgetting in the future, I added an item in the pre-commit
checklist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106287
* <__algorithm/iter_swap.h>
* <__algorithm/swap_ranges.h>
* <__functional/is_transparent.h>
* <__memory/uses_allocator.h>
* <__ranges/drop_view.h>
* <__ranges/transform_view.h>
* <shared_mutex>
* <span>
Also updates header inclusions that were affected.
**NOTE:** This is a proper subset of D105932. Since the content has
already been LGTM'd, I intend to merge this patch without review,
pending green CI. I decided it would be better to move these changes
into their own commit since the former patch has undergone further
changes and will need yet another light review. In the event any of
that gets rolled back (for whatever reason), the changes in this patch
won't be affected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106040
Arthur O'Dwyer