for (auto&& elt : range) Always Works

In my previous post Contra CTAD (2018-12-09), I mentioned that I like things that work 100% of the time, and that I dislike — and strongly recommend against ever using — things that work 99% of the time and then break on the 100th time. In response, Reddit commenter AlexAlabuzhev wrote: “There are no features that work 100% of the time.”

When it comes to C++, that statement is truer than I wish it were. This is the language that couldn’t even get vector right! But there’s still hope for the working programmer. There are many C++ features and C++ idioms that work 100% of the time. Typically these are the ones that turn into teachable guidelines.

Here’s one that keeps coming up over and over on Slack: the idiomatic way to loop over a range in C++11.

for (auto&& elt : range) {

Use this style of loop! Use for (auto&& elt : range). It Always Works. Never use anything but the thing that Always Works, unless you are willing to deal with the possibility of the-thing-you-use Not Working.

Here are some ways I’ve seen people ignore the rule and come to grief, recently:

This ranges-v3 code:

T my_generator();
void examine(T&);

void test() {
    for (auto obj : ranges::view::generate(my_generator) | ranges::view::take(3)) {

With auto, this code is doing one more move-construction than it needs to. With auto&&, it’s… well, the codegen honestly still looks pretty inefficient, but it’s one move/destroy cycle more efficient than it had been with auto.

This unique_ptr code:

using Map = std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<M>>;

void transfer(Map& params) {
    Map mine;
    for (const auto& p : params) {
        mine.emplace(p.first, std::move(p.second));

The author of this code was rewarded with a spew of error messages, starting here:

error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'std::pair<const std::
__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >,
std::unique_ptr<M, std::default_delete<M> > >'
    { ::new((void *)__p) _Up(std::forward<_Args>(__args)...); }
                         ^   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
note: in instantiation of function template specialization '__gnu_cxx::
new_allocator<std::_Rb_tree_node<std::pair<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<
char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::unique_ptr<M,
std::default_delete<M> > > > >::construct<std::pair<const std::__cxx11::
basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >,
std::unique_ptr<M, std::default_delete<M> > >, const std::__cxx11::
basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > &,
const std::unique_ptr<M, std::default_delete<M> > >' requested here
    { __a.construct(__p, std::forward<_Args>(__args)...); }

Did you spot the bug? …or did you just see the reddish flag of const auto& p : params and decide to change it to the thing that Always Works, auto&&?

void transfer(Map& params) {
    Map mine;
    for (auto&& p : params) {
        mine.emplace(p.first, std::move(p.second));

Now p’s type is deduced as Map::value_type&, rather than const Map::value_type&, and so the std::move actually does something. So, from a certain point of view, the “bug” was that const auto& had one extra const qualifier on it… but from another point of view, all that’s needed is to identify a for-loop that doesn’t follow the for (auto&& elt : range) pattern and fix it. If you write things with for (auto&& elt : range) from the start, your code will start out with fewer bugs.

The classic auto&& use-case, of course, brings us full circle to vector<bool>:

template<class T>
void fill(std::vector<T>& vec, T value) {
    for (auto& elt : vec) {
        elt = value;

We know even before we compile this code that something is fishy, because we see auto& where we expect always to see auto&&. So when we compile this code and hit a compiler error…

int main()
    std::vector<bool> v;
    fill(v, true);

error: non-const lvalue reference to type 'std::_Bit_reference' cannot bind
to a temporary of type 'std::_Bit_iterator::reference' (aka 'std::_Bit_reference')
    for (auto& elt : vec) {
               ^   ~

…we know immediately that the way to fix it is to go back to using for (auto&& elt : range).


Use for (auto&& elt : range). It Always Works.

(For extremely detailed information on how it Always Works, consult Stephan T. Lavavej’s proposal N3853 “Range-Based For-Loops: The Next Generation” (January 2014). This paper proposed that for (elt : range) should be accepted as a shorthand syntax (auto&& being inserted implicitly by the compiler); but it was rejected over quite valid concerns about what should happen if some (perhaps global) variable elt is already in scope.)

See also:

Posted 2018-12-15