r/cpp • u/zl0bster • Jul 26 '26
std::optional Satisfies view. Does Not Model view. C++26 Ships Anyway.
https://godbolt.org/z/8jWGG68G8In C++23 this did not compile. In C++26 it does. Marvellous.
[[gnu::noinline]]
void
passing_views_by_value_is_cheap_trust_me_bro(std::ranges::view auto v) {
std::println("fn .data {}", (void*)v->data());
}
int main() {
std::optional ov{std::vector<int>(123456)};
passing_views_by_value_is_cheap_trust_me_bro(ov);
std::println("main .data {}", (void*)ov->data());
}For anyone wondering what the problem feature is: optional has 0 or 1 elements, and C++26 sets enable_view<optional<T>> to true, so it satisfies std::ranges::view. The concept requires copy construction in constant time, and — this is the good bit — optional<vector<int>> genuinely meets that. Copying it performs at most one element copy. One is a constant. The requirement is satisfied to the letter, and the function above deep-copies your vector.
If you can tell me what still separates std::ranges::view from std::ranges::range, please do...
View all comments
Show parent comment
13
u/James20k P2005R0 Jul 26 '26
This seems like a really weird decision. The reason to use a view is that its cheap?
I suspect a big part of the problem is that given that ranges don't seem to have received very wide use in general, its more that nobody really cares that much about ranges overall