[llvm-dev] RFC: General purpose type-safe formatting library

Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:32:18 -0000

I think my range example was misunderstood because that isn't really what I
had in mind. Apologies if that's what led to us getting off track

However, the syntax you proposed should work just fine. Since it is
extensible, you need only give the Range class in your example a format
method. The only thing I would change is that I would put the separator in
the string instead of the object

print("{0:,}", Range(s.begin(), s.begin()+20))

This way you have the freedom to display it multiple times with different
presentation. Eg

print("{0:,} {0: }")
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>
> AFAICT this appears to be the first time you've clarified that
you're
> talking about a situation where the compile-time checking happens using
> something other than format strings.
>
>
> I though I was clear in the thread (in the history below) when I wrote
> "Maybe the problem is using a string to format this in the first
place”
> followed by this example:  format(“{0}”, rPad(col_width, my_object));
>  where the padding is *not* in the format string.
>
> Another example earlier in the thread was the range (let say printing elts
> from 10 to 20 in a vector<int>). And instead of a syntax like:
>
> /* Format string is {eltid, separator, <range>} */
> print(“{0:,<10-20>}”,  /* std::vector<int> */. v);
>
> And having to actually generate the format string in the first place
>
> std::string format = format_string(“\{0:,<{0}-{1}>\}”, /* begin */
10, /*
> end */ 20);
>
> I rather have something like
>
> print(“{0}”, Range(“, ", v.begin()+10, v.begin()+20));
>
>
>   In Pavel's original email, he suggested compile time checking and you
> mentioned that I didn't object to it.  But if you go back and read my
> response, I said we can do the compile time checking *of the format
> strings* using C++14.  So no I didn't object to it in principle, but I
> never strayed from the desire to use format strings.
>
> To respond to your other point, no it doesn't make it more flexible
than a
> non-string based solution.  But does anyone want a non string-based
> solution?  We already have one, it's called raw_ostream.  And STL has
> another one in iostreams.  sprintf and llvm::format are not more flexible
> than streaming operators either, and yet people still flock to them because
> it yields the nicest looking code.  James Knight pointed out earlier that
> "any time someone invents a new formatting library, everyone always
ends up
> using printf anyway".  There's a reason for that, and it's
because printf
> is string-based.  That's what people want.
>
> So if we're talking about string-based versus non string-based, then
yes,
> I'm married to the idea of a string based solution.
>
>
> That doesn't mean we can't *also* expose the underlying format
> functionality via an additional set of non format based functions.  But
> string-based formatting is necessary if there is to be any adoption at all.
>
>
> I am not convinced that just because previous attempts didn’t success,
> we’re stuck forever with printf.
>
> At this point I’m not it is worth continuing the discussion, we can just
> agree to disagree on the principle.
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:19 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:40 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>
> You get compile time checking automatically when we can use c++14 though.
> If you use it with a string literal, you'll get compile time checking,
> otherwise you won’t.
>
>
> I understand that, but that doesn’t really address my concerns.
>
>
> Here's a different example though. Suppose you're writing a tool
which
> prints formatted output, and the field width is specified by the user.
>
>
>
> Now you NEED to build the format string at runtime, there's no other
way
>
>
> Maybe the problem is using a string to format this in the first place.
>
> For example, you could wrap the object you want to print with an adaptor
> in charge of padding to the right till you reach the column width.
>
> format(“{0}”, rPad(col_width, my_object));
>
>
> FWIW I do think that literal format strings will handle 90% or more of
> uses.  I just don't see the benefit of needlessly banning the other
cases.
> Because all that's going to happen is someone is going to resort to
using
> snprintf etc, which is exactly the problem I'm trying to solve.
>
>
> Sorry but you’re totally missing the point. If there is a need for
> dynamism, this should be supported, that’s not the question. My point is
> that generating a string that will be parsed by a format function can’t be
> the only solution.
>
>   It's literally no extra effort to support runtime format strings, and
it
> makes the library more flexible as a result.
>
>
> No: it does *not* make it more flexible than a non-string based solution
> that have the same functionality.
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
> I'm willing to start with UDLs only because I think it will get us
quite
> far, but as soon as I need to pass a format string through an intermediate
> function or something like that, I will probably check in the 3 extra lines
> of code to add a const char* overload format function.
>
> FWIW, there's no easy way to add compile time checking of format
strings
> until C++14, regardless of whether use UDLs or not.  So that doesn't
change
> either way.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161013/81c393ba/attachment-0001.html>