std::uninitialized_copy
Section: 26.11.5 [uninitialized.copy] Status: NAD Editorial Submitter: Daniel Krügler Opened: 2007-10-15 Last modified: 2016-01-28
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all other issues in [uninitialized.copy].
View all issues with NAD Editorial status.
Discussion:
14882-2003, [lib.uninitialized.copy] is currently written as follows:
template <class InputIterator, class ForwardIterator> ForwardIterator uninitialized_copy(InputIterator first, InputIterator last, ForwardIterator result);-1- Effects:
for (; first != last; ++result, ++first) new (static_cast<void*>(&*result)) typename iterator_traits<ForwardIterator>::value_type(*first);-2- Returns:
result
similarily for N2369, and its corresponding section 26.11.5 [uninitialized.copy].
It's not clear to me what the return clause is supposed to mean, I see two possible interpretations:
result
is supposed to mean the value given by the
function parameter result
[Note to the issue editor: Please use italics for
result
].
This seems somewhat implied by recognizing that both the function
parameter
and the name used in the clause do have the same italic font.
result
after the
preceding effects clause. This is in fact what all implementations I
checked
do (and which is probably it's intend, because it matches the
specification of std::copy
).
The problem is: I see nothing in the standard which grants that this
interpretation
is correct, specifically [lib.structure.specifications] or
16.3.2.4 [structure.specifications]
resp. do not clarify which "look-up" rules apply for names found in
the elements
of the detailed specifications - Do they relate to the corresponding
synopsis or
to the effects clause (or possibly other elements)? Fortunately most
detailed
descriptions are unambigious in this regard, e.g. this problem does
not apply
for std::copy
.
Proposed resolution:
Change the wording of the return clause to say (26.11.5 [uninitialized.copy]):
-2- Returns: The value of
result
after effects have taken place.
[ Bellevue: ]
Resolution: NAD editorial -- project editor to decide if change is worthwhile. Concern is that there are many other places this might occur.