Skip to content

[class.compare.secondary] The extent to which "The defaulted operator function is not considered" applies CWG2546 #5335

Closed
#6906
Closed
[class.compare.secondary] The extent to which "The defaulted operator function is not considered" applies CWG2546#5335
#6906
Labels
cwgIssue must be reviewed by CWG.

Description

@xmh0511
xmh0511
opened on Mar 7, 2022

[class.compare.secondary] p2

The operator function with parameters x and y is defined as deleted if

  • overload resolution ([over.match]), as applied to x @ y, does not result in a usable candidate, or
  • the candidate selected by overload resolution is not a rewritten candidate.

Otherwise, the operator function yields x @ y. The defaulted operator function is not considered as a candidate in the overload resolution for the @ operator.

Consider this example

struct C{
    friend int operator <=>(C const&, C const&){
        return -1;
    }
    bool operator <(C const&) const = default;
};
int main(){
    C x,y;
    bool r = x<y;  // #1
}

The actual call at #1 is C::operator<(C const&) const, which is exposed by GCC and Clang. That is, they do consider the defaulted operator function as a candidate in the overload resolution for operator <. Presumably, the emphasized wording is defined for the first bullet. Is it more clear to move the wording into the point after the first bullet?

overload resolution ([over.match]), as applied to x @ y, does not result in a usable candidate; The defaulted operator function is not considered as a candidate in the overload resolution for the @ operator.

Another wording that is hard to read:

Otherwise, the operator function yields x @ y

What does "the operator function yields x @ y" mean? GCC and Clang expose that the definition for the defaulted operator< function uses the call to operator<=>(C const&, C const&). However, this behavior cannot be read from this wording. Presumably, the wording may mean that

The implicitly-defined default operator function performs that the expression x@y is interpreted according to the usable candidate selected as above, as defined in [over.match.oper].

Such as the above example, since operator <=> is a usable candidate, according to [over.match.oper], x<y is interpreted as (x <=> y) @ 0, the effect of the defaulted operator < will behave the same as that of (x <=> y) @ 0.

The improvement to [class.compare.secondary] p2

The operator function with parameters x and y is defined as deleted if

  • overload resolution ([over.match]), as applied to x @ y, does not result in a usable candidate, or
  • the candidate selected by overload resolution is not a rewritten candidate.

Otherwise, the implicitly-defined default operator function performs the same as that the expression x@y is interpreted according to the usable candidate, as defined in [over.match.oper].

For the purpose of this definition, the defaulted operator function is not considered as a candidate in the overload resolution for the @ operator.

Activity

  1. xmh0511
    changed the title [-][class.compare.secondary] The extent in which "The defaulted operator function is not considered" works[/-] [+][class.compare.secondary] The extent to which "The defaulted operator function is not considered" applies[/+] on Mar 7, 2022

  2. frederick-vs-ja commented on Mar 7, 2022

    @frederick-vs-ja
    frederick-vs-ja
    on Mar 7, 2022
    Contributor

    Presumably, the emphasized wording is defined for the first bullet.

    No, the emphasized wording is applied to both bullets. For the purpose of the definition of the defaulted comparison operator funciton, the operator function itself can't be considered as a candidate in any case.

    The second bullet is used in the following (bad-written) case:

    #include <compare>
struct C {
    friend auto operator<=>(C, C) = default;
    constexpr bool operator<(const C&) const { return false; }
    friend bool operator<(C, C) = default; // deleted
};
// still well-formed if < is not used or only x.operator<(y) is used

    I think we can make the intent clearer by reordering:

    For the purpose of the definition of the defaulted operator function, the operator function itself is not considered as a candidate in the overload resolution for the @ operator. The operator function with parameters x and y is defined as deleted if

    • overload resolution ([over.match]), as applied to x @ y, does not result in a usable candidate, or
    • the candidate selected by overload resolution is not a rewritten candidate.

    Otherwise, the operator function yields x @ y. The defaulted operator function is not considered as a candidate in the overload resolution for the @ operator.

  3. xmh0511 commented on Mar 7, 2022

    @xmh0511
    xmh0511
    on Mar 7, 2022
    ContributorAuthor

    @frederick-vs-ja

    For the purpose of the definition of the defaulted comparison operator funciton, the operator function itself can't be considered as a candidate in any case.

    That is what I have given in the third part of this issue. "Otherwise, the operator function yields x @ y." this sentence also should be reworded.

  4. xmh0511 commented on Mar 7, 2022

    @xmh0511
    xmh0511
    on Mar 7, 2022
    ContributorAuthor

    Resulting in a usable candidate is not clear, see #5336.

  5. jensmaurer commented on Mar 7, 2022

    @jensmaurer
    jensmaurer
    on Mar 7, 2022
    Member

    CWG2546 should address this in its suggested resolution.

  6. jensmaurer
    changed the title [-][class.compare.secondary] The extent to which "The defaulted operator function is not considered" applies[/-] [+][class.compare.secondary] The extent to which "The defaulted operator function is not considered" applies CWG2546[/+] on Mar 7, 2022
  7. jensmaurer
    added
    cwgIssue must be reviewed by CWG.
    on Mar 7, 2022

  8. frederick-vs-ja commented on Apr 28, 2024

    @frederick-vs-ja
    frederick-vs-ja
    on Apr 28, 2024
    Contributor

    Should have been fixed by #6906 (eef4c2b).

  9. jensmaurer
    closed this as completedon Apr 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    cwgIssue must be reviewed by CWG.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions