• @nodeluna@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 days ago

      what don’t u get it? why did I make this? or what is the point of this type?

      if you are unfamiliar with std::expected then check out https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/expected.html

      it’s basically a type that let you return either a “value” or an “error” and the caller of the function has to check which did the function return. it’s a modern way of handling errors in C++ that was introduced in C++23

    • @nodeluna@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      because “if constexpr(…)” is a c++17 feature which i’m using it to allow usage of nl::unexpected() to return a nl::expected<nl::monostate, E> to nl::expected<T, E> in this copy constructor

      template<class U>
      expected(const expected<U, E>& other) : _has_value(other.has_value())   // a copy constructor  
      {
              if (_has_value)
              {
                      if constexpr (std::is_same<U, monostate>::value) // it checks if U == monostate
                      {
                              // makes an empty instance of "T"
                      }
                      else if constexpr (std::is_same<U, T>::value) // it checks if U == T
                      {
                              // otherwise copies "other._value" into _value
                      }
                      else
                      {
                              static_assert(
                                  not std::is_same<U, T>::value, "no available conversion between the provided value types");
                      }
              }
              else
              {
                      new (std::addressof(_error)) E(other.error());
              }
      }
      
       template<class E>
       expected<monostate, E> unexpected(const E& e) // then this can covert <monostate, E> to <T, E> fine because of this copy constructor
       {                
               return expected<monostate, E>(e);
       }
      
      
      // example usage
      
      nl::expected<int, std::string> meow = nl::unexpected("error");
      

      but i could take a different approach and make 2 copy constructor one that explicitly takes

      expected(const expected<monostate, E>& other)
      

      and another

      expected(const expected& other)
      

      I was also using “std::is_same_v” which is a c++17 feature instead “std::is_same<>::value” but i made a commit and changed it. it now compiles with c++14 but with c++17 extensions

      • @lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 days ago

        That if constexpr in the case you mention does make the constructor clean as heck. Thanks for the clarification and the commits, by the way!

        • @nodeluna@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 days ago

          ikr, constexpr is pretty cool. sure, no problem. I could make it fully compatible with c++14 without c++17 extensions if u wanna use it with c++14

          • @lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            27 days ago

            I mean, I am not too concerned and it is your code. The if constexpr is just so much spiffier. You should do what’s best for you.

            My own use case is that for pre-C++23 (and in particular, pre-C++20) workflows I’m looking to homogeneize the set of dependencies used to supplement the standard library and this looks like a great candidate lib. I already have my own expected, actually, but would rather someone else’s who knows what they’re doing. Since C++14 is the oldest standard I have to support directly for clients (big improvement: was C++03 before 2021) and it brought in the big changes that made constexpr actually usable, I treat C++14 as a a sorta “C++ LTS” in my codebase.

            • @nodeluna@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              alright then.

              I see. expected is such a great library to have regardless of the standard version. oh c++03, I’m not familiar with that standard.

              I enabled support for c++11 regardless, it’s kinda cool to do so