Home Why were abbrev. lambdas rejected?

Why were abbrev. lambdas rejected?

In November, 2017, I presented my proposal for abbreviated lambdas (P0573R2) to Evolution in Albuquerque. It was rejected (6-17), though the group was willing to consider future proposals for shorter lambdas which present new technical information (18-2).

Since then, there’s been a lot of confusion about what actually happened and why it was rejected, and part of this was my fault for not doing a good job communicating this to interested parties. Actually, that’s generous - I didn’t really communicate anything. So here is my making up for lost time by actually conveying this information.

To summarize, the core of the abbreviated lambda paper was that the syntax:

[](auto&& a, auto&& b) => a.id() < b.id();

mean precisely:

[](auto&& a, auto&& b)
    -> decltype((a.id() < b.id()))
    noexcept(noexcept(a.id() < b.id()))
    return a.id() < b.id();

Because you must type it three times.

The paper also had two extensions. The same syntax for functions:

template <typename C> auto begin(C& c) => c.begin();

And going one step further and allowing omitting type names:

[](a, b) => a.id() < b.id()

Where the last lambda would mean precisely the same as the first example, just saving us having to type the two auto&&s.

This proposal was rejected for several reasons. Let’s go through them.

Differing semantics with regular lambdas

Consider the two lambdas which just dereference a pointer:

auto f = [](int const* p) { return *p; }
auto g = [](int const* p) => *p;

f returns an int. g returns an int const&. C++ is a value semantic language, that is copy by default 1, here would be a place where suddenly we’re implicitly providing references. Moreover, some lambdas have auto semantics implicitly while abbreviated lambdas have decltype(auto) semantics implicitly.

Two different semantic models for basically the same feature.

Arbitrary lookahead parsing

With trying to omit type names, consider the beginning of the expression [](a, b). This looks like a lambda that takes two (unnamed) parameters of types a and b. But with the paper, it could be the beginning of an abbreviated generic lambda takes two parameters of types auto&& and auto&&. We don’t know how to interpret the parameter list until we eventually see a => (or not).

There was very strong opposition on this point.

Mismatch between the trailing-return-type and the body

Update My paper addressing this issue, P2036, was adopted in October 2021 as a defect report that fully addresses the issue described in the following section. Progress!

One of the subtleties with lambdas today is that name lookup in the trailing-return-type and the body of a lambda actually behave differently. Sometimes. Or rather, they always behave differently, but quite frequently the result is the same so you may not have noticed.

Consider a simple function that composes two functions, implemented with a lambda:

template <typename F, typename G>
auto compose(F f, G g) {
    return [=](auto... args) -> decltype(f(g(args...))) {
        return f(g(args...));

This implementation seems perfectly reasonable: we’re trying to write a SFINAE- friendly composition, and we want to preserve references. But it’s very subtly wrong.

Here’s one example:

auto counter = [i=0]() mutable { return i++; };
auto square = [](int i) { return i*i;};

auto squares = compose(square, counter);

// this passes: squares is invocable with no arguments.

// this is a compile error
auto next = squares();

We verified that our function is invocable, and yet we cannot invoke it. Why not? Because in the trailing-return-type, f and g have types F and G, and so the expression f(g()) is a valid expression whose type is int. But in the body, f and g are “members” of a lambda whose call operator is const and hence they behave as F const and G const

Where to go from here

As I said at the beginning, the room said they were amenable to seeing a new proposal with new technical information. Unfortunately, the first issue I pointed out here (having a differing semantic model) isn’t really a technical problem - it’s not like there are implementation or specification or even comprehension difficulties with this approach. So there would have to be a new design that somehow makes it visible that we’re (potentially) returning a reference.

This isn’t easy because references decay - we could easily regain auto semantics by adopting Zhihao’s P0849 and having an abbreviated lambda end with => auto(expr) instead of => expr. But we have no way of going the other way, and the most natural 2 choice might be => decltype(auto)(expr) but that would already have meaning. It’d need to be something novel like => ref expr or come up with a different token than => for when we want reference semantics.

Or, we could take a wildly different approach. Perhaps we pursue something like an expression lambda. Maybe that falls into the same fundamental problem - maybe it’s a sufficiently different construct that’s more tightly defined as being that expression that it works. Such an approach would be well shorter than what my paper proposed as well. Here’s a simple example for producing a comparator based on a member function (a context where SFINAE and reference-preservation are unlikely to be important):

// C++14 (50 chars)
[](auto&& a, auto&& b) { return a.id() < b.id(); }

// P0573, without typename omission (41 chars)
[](auto&& a, auto&& b) => a.id() < b.id()

// Swift (17 chars)
$1.id() < $2.id()

// vector-of-bool's blog suggestion (21 chars)
[][&1.id() < &2.id()]

But the point of this blog isn’t to suggest what the right direction is or isn’t, I just wanted to write a long overdue summary of at least what questions need to be considered to even take another step - wherever that next step might lead.

  1. Except for when you write f(value) and have no idea if value will be copied or not. 

  2. Did I just call this natural? C++ is weird. 

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.