The ISO C++ committee met in Santa Cruz, CA, USA on October 19-24. You can find the minutes here, which include the votes at the whole-group sessions but not the details of the breakout technical sessions where we spend most of the week.

The good news is that there’s little new technical news. We did a lot of work during the week, but it was mostly working on refining the standard, deciding integration questions of how two language features should work together in cases not clearly described, fixing bugs, and answering national body comments on our first public draft last fall (those are now nearly all answered). We expect to produce another public draft at our next meeting in March.

We did vote in one small feature that I and Lawrence Crowl in particular had been working on: a simple async() facility to launch asynchronous work easily without messing with packaged_tasks and raw threads. Here’s a sample use, also demonstrating a simple use of the futures library and a lambda function for kicks:

  future f = std::async( []{ OtherWork(); } );

  //... do our own work concurrently with OtherWork ...

  OkayNowWeNeedTheResult( f.get() );  // blocks if necessary until f is ready

If you’ve been following the futures library, you’ll notice a name change above: We also renamed unique_future<T> to just plain future<T> as part of recasting the futures wording to make it clearer and more consistent. That’s an example of the kind of cleanup work being done.

Near the end of the meeting, we also discussed deprecating export (as I reported earlier) and exception specifications other than throw()-nothing. There seemed to be significant support for deprecating both, and so we’ll probably see a concrete proposal at our next meeting.

In sad news, the convener (chair) of the committee for the past year, P.J. Plauger, stepped down at the end of the meeting. After I had been the convener for two three-year terms from 2002 to 2008, I decided it was time for someone else to have a go and so Plauger replaced me a year ago. He has done a really great job over the past year and his contributions in that role will be missed, but we won’t lose his services entirely as he remains an active participant in the committee. I will probably volunteer again to replace him.

That’s pretty much it. The next meeting of the ISO C++ standards committee is in March:

• March 8-13, 2010: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

(Edited to fix “2009” in the title and add a link to the Pittsburgh meeting invitation.)

On the flight to the ISO C standards meeting this morning, I was reading this month’s issue of CACM, and found that Sir C.A.R. (Tony) Hoare wrote a nice piece called Retrospective: An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming.

Hoare has long been a noted proponent of axioms and formal proofs of program correctness. In that light, the following passage on testing and axioms struck me as well put and I thought I’d share it (emphasis added):

One thing I got spectacularly wrong. I could see that programs were getting larger, and I thought that testing would be an increasingly ineffective way of removing errors from them. I did not realize that the success of tests is that they test the programmer, not the program. Rigorous testing regimes rapidly persuade error-prone programmers (like me) to remove themselves from the profession. Failure in test immediately punishes any lapse in programming concentration, and (just as important) the failure count enables implementers to resist management pressure for premature delivery of unreliable code [or forces management to be explicitly unreasonable in the face of bug bar data and specific failure cases having an objective severity –hps]. The experience, judgment, and intuition of programmers who have survived the rigors of testing are what make programs of the present day useful, efficient, and (nearly) correct. Formal methods for achieving correctness must support the intuitive judgment of programmers, not replace it.

My basic mistake was to set up proof in opposition to testing, where in fact both of them are valuable and mutually supportive ways of accumulating evidence of the correctness and serviceability of programs. …

He also mentions many other useful observations and reminds, including the value of assertions to find, not run-time errors, but programming bugs. (See also C++ Coding Standards Item 68: Assert liberally to document internal assumptions and invariants.)

The whole article is good reading, and not long. Recommended.

How interesting.

I’m at the ISO C++ meeting in Santa Cruz, CA, USA this week. Ten minutes ago we had a committee straw poll about whether we should remove, deprecate, or leave as-is the export template feature for C++0x. The general sentiment was to remove or deprecate it, with deprecation getting the strongest support because it’s safer per ISO procedure. Deprecation would not remove it from C++0x, but would put the world on notice that the committee is considering removing it from a future standard.

Note: Nothing is happening to export at this meeting. The effect of this straw poll of the committee was to give guidance to the core language working group (CWG) on the committee’s general sentiment on this issue. The CWG is taking this as guidance to produce a detailed proposal to take some action on export at our next meeting in Pittsburgh in March.

I’ll write a longer trip report in the next week, but this was worth noting in real time because it’s the first time export template has been discussed in committee since the highly controversial discussion of my and Tom Plum’s proposal to remove export at the Oxford meeting in 2003.

I recently received the following reader question (slightly edited):

About the (Stroustrup) approach of implementing IsDerivedFrom at page 27 in your book More Exceptional C++: […] why the second pointer assignment in:

static void Constraints(D* p)
{
B* pb=p; // okay, D better inherit from B…
pb=p; // huh? why this again?
}

Isn’t the initialization ” B* pb=p ” enough? What does the second assignment bring to the picture?

Excellent question. Interestingly, here’s the exact text from the book, which contains an additional comment that was intended to answer this specific question (emphasis added):

static void Constraints(D* p)
{
B* pb = p;
pb = p; // suppress warnings about unused variables
}

The reason for the redundant assignment is to try to shut up some compilers that issue warnings about unused variables. In a normal function, this is a helpful warning because, dollars to donuts, it’s a mistake and the programmer meant to use the variable but forgot or accidentally used some other variable instead. In this case, without the second line, pb is declared but never mentioned again, and by adding the extra line that mentions it one more time after its declaration, some compilers stop complaining.

Sometimes, however, we’re intentionally not using the variable, such as in this case where the only purpose of the function is to ensure that code that tries to convert a D* to a B* is compilable. (Note: There are other/better ways to achieve this. See the rest of Item 27 for superior approaches.)

However, in practice even the line “pb = p;” doesn’t shut compilers up very much, because many will still notice that now the second assigned value isn’t used, and will helpfully remind you that you probably didn’t mean to write an apparently useless “dead write” that is never read again. Most compilers offer a compiler-specific #pragma or other nonportable extension to silence this warning, but wouldn’t it be nice to have a portable way to suppress the warning that will work on all compilers?

Here’s a simple one-liner that works on all compilers I tried, and should not incur any overhead: Define an empty function template that takes any object by reference, but doesn’t actually do anything with it and so the empty function body should compile down to nothing. Let’s call it “ignore” – you can put it into your project namespace to avoid collisions on that common name.

  template<class T> void ignore( const T& ) { }

Note that ignore<T>’s parameter does not need a name; in fact, it had better not have a name or else you’ll get the same compiler warning as before about an unused variables, only in a new place.

Using ignore is easy. When you want to suppress the compiler warning, just write:

  static void Constraints(D* p)

  {

    B* pb = p;

    ignore(pb); // portably suppresses the warning

  }

Now all compilers I tried agree that the variable is “used” and stop complaining about pb.

[Oct 20: Updated  to add “const” on ignore<T>’s parameter to also handle rvalues.]