[BUG] Multiple T data members before this data member

[JohelEGP]

Direct inheritance from the same type cpp2::store_as_base<T> multiple times is ill-formed. I suggest its API follows https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/utility/doc/html/utility/utilities/base_from_member.html.

Minimal reproducer:

x: type = { }
w: type = {
  a: std::string;
  b: std::string;
  this: x;
}

Commands:

cppfront x.cpp2
clang++17 -std=c++2b -I $CPPFRONT_INCLUDE_DIR x.cpp

Expected result: A well-formed program.

Actual result and error:

Generated C++1

//=== Cpp2 type declarations ====================================================


#include "cpp2util.h"

#line 1 "x.cpp2"
class x;
class w;

//=== Cpp2 type definitions and function declarations ===========================

#line 1 "x.cpp2"
class x {};
class w: private cpp2::store_as_base<std::string>, private cpp2::store_as_base<std::string>, public x {

#line 6 "x.cpp2"
};

//=== Cpp2 function definitions =================================================

x.cpp2:2:52: error: base class 'cpp2::store_as_base<std::string>' (aka 'store_as_base<basic_string<char>>') specified more than once as a direct base class
class w: private cpp2::store_as_base<std::string>, private cpp2::store_as_base<std::string>, public x {
                                                   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.

[JohelEGP]

For

w: type = {
  a: T;
  b: U;
  this: x;
}

I think, in general, cppfront can't know whether T and U are the same type. So something like the UniqueID part of boost::base_from_member would have to be used always.

[hsutter]

Right, the next thing I wanted to add was a disambiguator for exactly that case... hold on...

[hsutter]

(I meant to do that before pushing this commit... I knew there was one thing I'd forgotten...)

[hsutter]

Actually the idea I had in mind is simpler... move the String template-parameter-friendly helper from common.h to cpp2util.h so cpputil can use it, and then add it as a parameter to store_as_base and just store the actual member name (e.g., store_as_base<"name", std::string> and store_as_base<"address", std::string> should be fine as well as more readable than a generated unique ID).

[filipsajdak]

@hsutter So, from what I understand, if I declare a member before a base type, the member will be put into store_as_base, and it will be privately inherited.

As this is perfectly fine (especially when the name will be added as a template parameter) I am curious about what is behind that idea. Is there any rule that covers that or is it just an enabler for something else?

[hsutter]

Done -- BTW @JohelEGP I didn't know about Boost's base_from_member but that doc page has a nice motivating example of when you want to do this.

So I think Cpp2 now allows both examples from that page's documentation, but expressed directly. This is pretty nice, here's how I understand it (please correct, I didn't compile the following code so it may have typos/thinkos)...

Example 1: Single object

In the Boost example, the first motivating example looks like this, where you need to initialize the output streambuf-derived member before passing it to initialize the base class ostream:

Today, using Boost

class fdostream
  : private boost::base_from_member<fdoutbuf>
  , public std::ostream
{
    // Helper typedef's
    typedef boost::base_from_member<fdoutbuf>  pbase_type;
    typedef std::ostream                        base_type;

public:
    explicit fdostream( int fd )
      : pbase_type( fd ), base_type( &member ){}
    //...
};

Cpp2 equivalent

As of today's cppfront commits that add inheritance, and allow ordering member and base subobjects interleaved and accessing them all by name, in Cpp2 you just write the (data/base) members in the desired order and use their names directly:

fdostream: type = {
    buf: fdoutbuf;
    this: std::ostream;

    operator=: (out this, int fd ) = {
        buf = fd;
        std::ostream = buf&;
    }
    //...
};

Example 2: Multiple objects

Here's the second example from that Boost page, which shows a little state machine:

Today, using Boost

class system
  : private boost::base_from_member<an_int>
  , private boost::base_from_member<switcher>
  , private boost::base_from_member<switcher, 1>
  , private boost::base_from_member<switcher, 2>
  , protected flow_regulator
  , public fan<6>
{
    // Helper typedef's
    typedef boost::base_from_member<an_int>       pbase0_type;
    typedef boost::base_from_member<switcher>     pbase1_type;
    typedef boost::base_from_member<switcher, 1>  pbase2_type;
    typedef boost::base_from_member<switcher, 2>  pbase3_type;
    typedef flow_regulator  base1_type;
    typedef fan<6>          base2_type;

public:
    system( double x );
    //...
};

system::system( double x )
  : pbase0_type( 0.2 )
  , pbase1_type()
  , pbase2_type( -16, &this->pbase0_type::member.y )
  , pbase3_type( x, static_cast<int *>(NULL) )
  , base1_type( pbase3_type::member, pbase1_type::member )
  , base2_type( pbase2_type::member )
{
    //...
}

Cpp2 equivalent

If I understand the Boost example correctly, the equivalent in Cpp2 as of today is now this (modulo typos):

system: type = {
    state0: an_int;
    state1: switcher,
    state2: switcher,
    state3: switcher,
    this: flow_regulator // note: public, not protected
    this: fan<6>;

    operator=: (out this, x: double ) = {
        state0 = 0.2;
        state1 = ();
        state2 = ( -16, state0.y& );
        state3 = ( x, nullptr );
        flow_regulator = ( state3, state1 );
        fan<6> = state2;
        //...
    }
    //...
};

Nice, thanks for the Boost link.

[hsutter]

@hsutter So, from what I understand, if I declare a member before a base type, the member will be put into store_as_base, and it will be privately inherited.

Yes. The latter half of the sentence is an implementation detail -- from the point of view of the user, they simply wrote the data member subobject before the base subobject, which not only guarantees they are laid out in that order but also guarantees that the data member is initialized (constructed) before the base class.

As this is perfectly fine (especially when the name will be added as a template parameter) I am curious about what is behind that idea. Is there any rule that covers that or is it just an enabler for something else?

See the above examples (thanks again for the Boost page link @JohelEGP!)... it doesn't come up a lot, but sometimes there is a need to initialize a base class with a data member, and they'd better be constructed in the right order. I knew workarounds for this existed, but I didn't know Boost had one, and that what I just checked in pretty much mirrored the Boost implementation (wow... because I considered several different implementations and decided the private wrapped base one was best, and lo and behold! Daryle Walker, the author of this Boost library, made the same decision -- thanks Daryle!).

Also, pasting the acknowledgements from the Boost page:

• Ed Brey suggested some interface changes.
• R. Samuel Klatchko (rsk@moocat.org, rsk@brightmail.com) invented the idiom of how to use a class member for initializing a base class.
• Dietmar Kuehl popularized the base-from-member idiom in his IOStream example classes.
• Jonathan Turkanis supplied an implementation of generating the constructor templates that can be controlled and automated with macros. The implementation uses the Preprocessor library.
• Walker started the library. Contributed the test file base_from_member_test.cpp.

Those give some additional references/uses. I confess that when I decided to support interleaved bases and (other) members, I didn't know about these specific examples. I just knew about the problem and that there were use cases (I've mentioned this a few times, at least as early as a 1998 C++ Report article of mine), and I knew that unifying inheritance syntax (so that base classes weren't declared in a separate base class list and weren't initialized in a separate member initializer list) would naturally allow interleaving them with other members, that that was a semantically powerful generalization (not just a syntactic convenience), and that supporting the interleaving was likely a small use case but one worth supporting from the outset as soon as I added inheritance (in particular, it directly hits initialization safety, so even though it's a rarer need, it's a safety-important one).

Sorry for the long sentences and parentheticals, I have time to write but not time to edit. 😉 Obligatory Pascal (the person) quote reference here

[filipsajdak]

Thanks for the explanation!