Document #:  P2214R1 
Date:  20210914 
Project:  Programming Language C++ 
Audience: 
LEWG 
Replyto: 
Barry Revzin <barry.revzin@gmail.com> Conor Hoekstra <conorhoekstra@gmail.com> Tim Song <t.canens.cpp@gmail.com> 
Since [P2214R0], updating with progress and links to other papers. Several changes have been made here:
cache1
has been lowered from Tier 1 to Tier 2 due to inherent issues with its design.as_const
has been upgraded from Tier 3 to Tier 1 due to demand (and renamed from const_
).flat_map
has been lowered to Tier 3 (since now transform(f)  join
is correct for all cases).transform_maybe
has been lowered to Tier 2 (since it depends on cache1
)shift_left
and shift_right
.chunk_by
When Ranges was merged into C++20 [P0896R4], it was knowingly incomplete. While it was based on the implementation experience in rangev3 [rangev3], only a small part of that library was adopted into C++20. The Ranges proposal was big enough already, a lot of the pieces were separable and so could be included later.
But now that the core of Ranges has been included, later has come and we have to figure out what to do for C++23. This is a particularly trying period in the committee’s history with the global pandemic and lack of facetoface meetings. But we do already have a plan for C++23 [P0592R4] which laid out the following priorities:
The priority order of handling material is thus:
and
Where are nexgen Ranges in this plan?
We could certainly entertain more Actions and Views in the realm of Ranges. Whether such material appears for standardization is a bit unknown at this point.
We believe that adding more functionality to Ranges is important, even if it would technically be a 3rd priority item (unless you consider the spirit of the 2nd priority to include integration with itself).
But there is a lot of outstanding functionality that could be added. And while we think all of it should eventually be added (having more algorithms and more views is always a good thing), we realize that this is may be too much even in the C++23 time frame. Rather than having oneoff papers that propose one bit of functionality (as in [P1255R6], [P1894R0], or [P2164R5]), we think it’s important to take a big picture view of what is out there and triage the various parts into three separate buckets:
This paper provides our opinion for how to categorize Ranges functionality into those three buckets. We go through, in turn: viewsadjacent functionality, views, algorithms, and actions (which do not exist in C++20).
C++20 Ranges, and the rangev3 that birthed it, isn’t just a collection of loosely related views and algorithms. There’s some important other functionality there.
One critical piece of missing functionality is ranges::to
[P1206R6]. It’s not a view, but it is often used as the terminal component of a view pipeline to create a new trailing range  to finally collect the results of the computation being constructed. This is a top priority and is sorely missing.
Another criticial piece of functionality was pointed out by Walter Brown in the telecon discussing the initial draft of this paper: it is simply not possible for users to write their own range adaptors such that they smoothly interact with standard library (or other user) range adaptors. That is, it is possible (but a little tedious) for users to write an adaptor such that they can write r  my::thing  my::func(2)
, but it is not possible for them to write an adaptor such that they can write:
In order to do that, standard library adaptors need to recognize userdefined adaptors as being adaptors. That needs library help and is also a top priority  since if users can define more adaptors, it becomes less critical that the standard library provide all of them. The standard library needs to provide pipe support for userdefined adaptors [P2387R1]
Another important piece of functionality is simply the ability to print views. In rangev3, views were printable, which made it easy to debug programs or to provide meaningful output. For instance, the following program using rangev3 happily compiles:
#include <range/v3/view/iota.hpp>
#include <range/v3/view/transform.hpp>
#include <range/v3/view/filter.hpp>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
namespace rv = ranges::views;
auto r = rv::iota(0, 20)
 rv::filter([](int i) { return i % 2 == 0; })
 rv::transform([](int i){ return i * i; });
std::cout << r;
}
and prints [0,4,16,36,64,100,144,196,256,324]
.
Similarly, fmtlib supports printing ranges with fmt::join
, which is slightly more tedious but is at least still a single line:
#include <range/v3/view/iota.hpp>
#include <range/v3/view/transform.hpp>
#include <range/v3/view/filter.hpp>
#include <fmt/format.h>
int main() {
namespace rv = ranges::views;
auto r = rv::iota(0, 20)
 rv::filter([](int i) { return i % 2 == 0; })
 rv::transform([](int i){ return i * i; });
fmt::print("[{}]", fmt::join(r, ","));
}
But neither the ability to stream views directly nor fmt::join
are in C++20, so there is no direct way to print a range at all.
We think it’s important that C++23 provides the ability to format all the ranges [P2286R2]. Since these are all standard library types, it is difficult for the user to be able to actually do this themselves and it’s frustrating to even have to.
C++20 included a bunch of views, but rangev3 has a whole lot more. Views, much like algorithms, are the kind of thing where it’s just generally good to have more of them. The C++20 standard library has over 100 algorithms, but only 17 range adapters and view factories (excluding all
and ref
). We want more.
We’ll start this section by enumerating all the adapters in rangev3 (and a few that aren’t), noting their current status, and ranking them according to our view of their priority for C++23, before describing how we came up with such a ranking.
View

Current Status

Proposed Priority


addressof 
rangev3  Not proposed 
adjacent 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 1 [P2321R2] 
adjacent_transform 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 1 [P2321R2] 
adjacent_filter 
rangev3  Tier 3 
adjacent_remove_if 
rangev3  Tier 3 
all 
C++20  C++20 
any_view<T> 
rangev3  Not proposed 
c_str 
rangev3  Tier 3 
cache1 
rangev3  Tier 2. Possibly renamed as cache_last or cache_latest 
cartesian_product 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P2374R1] 
chunk 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P2442R0] 
chunk_by 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P2443R0]. This is an improved group_by recently added to rangev3. Also consider a variant chunk_on as Tier 2 
common 
C++20  C++20 
concat 
rangev3  Tier 2 
const_ 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P2278R1], renamed to as_const 
counted 
C++20  C++20 
cycle 
rangev3  Tier 2 
delimit 
rangev3  Tier 2 
drop 
C++20  C++20 
drop_last 
rangev3  Tier 2 
drop_last_while 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 2 
drop_exactly 
rangev3  Tier 3 
drop_while 
C++20  C++20 
empty 
C++20  C++20 
enumerate 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P2164R5] 
filter 
C++20  C++20 
for_each 
rangev3  Tier 3. Most languages call this flat_map , but we probably need to call it transform_join . This is now completely supported as transform(f)  join 
generate 
rangev3  Tier 2 
generate_n 
rangev3  Tier 2 
group_by 
rangev3  Not proposed. See group_by discussion 
head 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 3 
indirect 
rangev3  Not proposed 
intersperse 
rangev3  Tier 2 
ints 
rangev3  Unnecessary unless people really hate iota . 
iota 
C++20  C++20 
join 
partially C++20, lacks delimiter ability  Tier 1 (adding delimiter ability via join_with [P2441R0]) 
keys 
C++20  C++20 
linear_distribute 
rangev3  Tier 3 
maybe 
proposed in [P1255R6]  ??? 
move 
rangev3  Not proposed 
partial_sum 
rangev3  Tier 2, but not taking a callable (solely as a specialized form of scan ) 
remove 
rangev3  Tier 2 
remove_if 
rangev3  Tier 2 
repeat 
rangev3  Tier 2 
repeat_n 
rangev3  Tier 2 
replace 
rangev3  Tier 2 
replace_if 
rangev3  Tier 2 
reverse 
C++20  C++20 
sample 
rangev3  Tier 3 
scan 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 2, as a rename of what is partial_sum in rangev3 
set_difference 
rangev3  Tier 3 
set_intersection 
rangev3  Tier 3 
set_union 
rangev3  Tier 3 
set_symmetric_difference 
rangev3  Tier 3 
single 
C++20  C++20 
slice 
rangev3  Tier 3 
sliding 
rangev3  Tier 1, renamed to slide [P2442R0] 
split 
C++20, but unergonomic  See [P2210R0]. 
split_when 
rangev3  Tier 2 
stride 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P1899R0] 
tail 
rangev3  Tier 3 
take 
C++20  C++20 
take_exactly 
rangev3  Tier 3 
take_last 
rangev3  Tier 2 
take_last_while 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 2 
take_while 
C++20  C++20 
tokenize 
rangev3  Not proposed 
transform_maybe 
(not in rangev3)  Tier 2, as a more ergonomic maybe (Haskell calls this mapMaybe , Rust calls this filter_map ) 
trim 
rangev3  Tier 2 
unbounded 
rangev3  Not proposed 
unique 
rangev3  Tier 2 
values 
C++20  C++20 
zip 
rangev3  Tier 1 [P2321R2] 
zip_with 
rangev3  Tier 1, renamed to zip_transform [P2321R2] 
One question we have to ask is which of these views need to be fullblown view types and which do not. This is an important question to deal with in light of the very real limitation that is LWG’s bandwidth. Views that need to be full types necessitate more longer and more complex specification which require more LWG time. Views that need not be full types could save some time.
Consider views::tail
. This is a very simple range adapter that simply drops its first element. As such, it could be specified entirely as:
The above is a semantically correct implementation. However, is it the implementation we would actually want for views::tail
? There are a few extra things views::drop
has to do. views::drop
must store a count and a cache for the begin iterator for forward ranges (to satisfy O(1)
), but views:tail
has to do none of these things since 1 is a constant and invoking next()
one time still satisfies O(1)
.
This puts us in an interesting position: we either adopt a known suboptimal implementation of tail
with minimal LWG cost (such that we could likely adopt this for C++23) or we could hold off for the optimal implementation (in which case we could not in good conscience put tail
as a Tier 1 view, as it is certainly not that important). As such, we have tentatively marked it as Tier 3.
Take a different view, unbounded
. A perfectly valid implementation of it, in its entirely is:
namespace std::ranges::views {
inline constexpr auto unbounded = [](input_iterator auto it){
return subrange(std::move(it), unreachable_sentinel);
};
}
Unlike tail
, there isn’t really some other, better implementation here. Maybe we’d prefer to give unbounded_view<I>
its own type rather than piggybacking off of subrange
, but it wouldn’t really affect the choice of functionality overall. Here the question is less, do we do it fast for C++23 or do it right for C++26 or C++20. Rather, the question is more: do we even need this at all? We think we don’t.
Consider two different, closely related views: views::zip
and views::zip_transform
(which rangev3 calls zip_with
). Each could potentially be specified in terms of the other:
views::zip(Es...)
could be views::zip_transform(forwardastuple, Es...)
views::zip_transform(F, Es...)
could be views::zip(Es...)  views::transform(applied(F))
where forwardastuple
is a function object version of std::forward_as_tuple
and applied(F)(x)
is equivalent to std::apply(F, x)
.
But they’re not quite equivalent — they differ in their handling of ranges that produce prvalues. zip_transform
can’t differentiate between prvalues and xvalues, while zip
would need to, so we lose that distinction by implementing zip
in terms of zip_transform
.
Likewise, a firstclass zip_transform
would construct those prvalues directly into the parameters of the function that gets passed in; whereas if we implemented zip_transform
in terms of zip
and transform
those prvalues would have to first be materialized into a tuple
and then moved into the function.
Even though these two views are very, very similar to each other, we still don’t want to specify one in terms of the other even if it means more specification effort. And we still propose that both be Tier 1 views due to their overall importance. It would be better to adopt zip
on its own and provide a new function adapter applied
, leaving the door open to a better zip_transform
in the future, than specify zip_transform
in terms of zip
and transform
.
Another interesting example is transform_maybe
. As we’ll see later, transform_maybe(E, F)
can easily be specified in terms of three adapters today (a transform
followed by a filter
followed by a transform
). But while tail
can be made a little bit better as a standalone view, transform_maybe
can be substantially improved.
Ultimately, this question of full view or not fill view is one that should guide review of this paper.
zip
familyThe zip
family of range adapters is an extremely useful set of adapters with broad applicability (and is now proposed in [P2321R2]). It consists of five userfacing range adapters:
zip
zip_transform
— zip_with
in rangev3enumerate
— enumerate(E)
is roughly equivalent to zip(iota(0), E)
adjacent
— adjacent(E)
is equivalent to zip(E, E  drop(1))
adjacent_transform
— is to adjacent
what zip_transform
is to zip
Indeed, we have many algorithms that exist largely because we don’t have zip
(and prior to Ranges, didn’t have the ability to compose algorithms). We have several algorithms that have singlerangeunaryfunction and a tworangebinaryfunction flavors. What if you wanted to ranges::transform
3 ranges? Out of luck. But in all of these cases, the tworangebinaryfunction flavor could be written as a singlerange that is a zip
of the two ranges, adjacent_difference
is adjacent_transform
, inner_product
is zip_transform
followed by accumulate
, and so on and so on. This is why we think zip
is the top priority view.
rangev3 uses the name zip_with
, but here we are instead proposing zip_transform
. The reason is that what we’re doing is, quite simply, a transform
and in C++, we don’t really have a strong association of that with the _with
suffix. Instead, we have algorithms like begins_with
and concepts like swappable_with
and totally_ordered_with
, which have nothing to do with this sort of thing.
rangev3 implements zip
and zip_with
in terms of an underlying adaptor named iter_zip_with
, which takes an n
ary invocable and n
ranges and combines those into a single range whose values are the result of f(is...)
, where the is
are the iterators into those ranges (note: iterators, not what they refer to). The size of an iter_zip_with
is the minimum size of its ranges. The reference
type is the type of f(*is...)
while the value_type
is V
(described in more detail later along with the specific choices for V_{zip_transform}
and V_{zip}
used below).
But it turned out that these two views have enough differences that this doesn’t aid in the specification effort that much, and so [P2321R2] did not do it this way. Instead, zip_transform_view<F, V...>
is specified in terms of a member zip_view<V...>
.
Having those two, enumerate(E)
is expressionequivalent to zip(indexview(E), E)
. We will discuss why indexview(E)
instead of iota(range_size_t<decltype(E)>(0)
later.
But we do not want to define adjacent(E)
as zip(E, E  drop(1))
. The primary reason to avoid doing this, and to make adjacent
a firstclass view type despite the added specification effort, is that it allows supporting moveonly views. On top of that, it has the benefit of not having to store the view twice or the other cruft that drop
has to store (see also the drop
/tail
discussion earlier).
Similar to how zip_transform_view<F, V...>
is specified in terms of a member zip_view<V...>
, adjacent_transform_view<V, F, N>
is specified as having a member adjacent_view<V, N>
.
In short, we get five extremely useful ranges largely from the price of two of them (plus a lot of boilerplate). Which is why we think they should be considered and adopted as a group.
But in order to actually adopt zip
and friends into C++23, we need to resolve several problems.
tuple
that is writable
Consider the following:
std::vector<int> vi = /* ... */;
std::vector<std::string> vs = /* ... */;
ranges::sort(views::zip(vi, vs));
Does this operation make sense? Definitely! It would be very useful if this compiled. Unfortunately, asis, it will not. We need to go back and understand why this won’t compile today and what we need to do to fix it.
In [rangev3.573], user Jarod42 pointed out that the following program used to compile, yet provide a nonsensical answer:
struct C
{
explicit C(std::string a) : bar(a) {}
std::string bar;
};
int main()
{
std::vector<C> cs = { C("z"), C("d"), C("b"), C("c") };
ranges::sort(cs  ranges::view::transform([](const C& x) {return x.bar;}));
for (const auto& c : cs) {
std::cout << c.bar << std::endl;
}
}
The range was not sorted, the emitted output was still in the same order as the input… because we’re sorting a range of prvalue std::string
s, and trying to swap prvalue std::string
s makes little sense because it doesn’t do anything.
But the reason it compiled was that the constraints checked if the iterators were assignablethrough, which in this case was equivalent to checking if std::string() = std::string()
is a valid expression… and it, unfortunately, is. Assignment operators simply are not referencequalified  they could not have been for a long time, and they are not now. The question became then  how can the library ensure that the above nonsense does not compile?
As discussed in [stl2.381]:
One fix would be to require that *o
return a true reference, but that breaks when *o
returns a proxy reference. The trick is in distinguishing between a prvalue that is a proxy from a prvalue that is just a value. The trick lies in recognizing that a proxy always represents a (logical, if not physical) indirection. As such, adding a const
to the proxy should not effect the mutability of the thing being proxied. Further, if decltype(*o)
is a true reference, then adding const
to it has no effect, which also does not effect the mutability. So the fix is to add const
to decltype(*o)
, const_cast
*o
to that, and then test for writability.
Which is how we ended up with the indirectly_writable
(the concept formerly known as Writable
) requiring const
assignability.
Hence, in order to make ranges::sort(zip(vi, vs))
compile, we need to make zip_view<R...>::iterator
model indirectly_writable
, which means we need to make std::tuple
constassignable. That is, adding the following assignment operators, appropriately constrained:
// [tuple.assign], tuple assignment
constexpr tuple& operator=(const tuple&);
+ constexpr tuple& operator=(const tuple&) const;
constexpr tuple& operator=(tuple&&) noexcept(see below);
+ constexpr tuple& operator=(tuple&&) const noexcept(see below);
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr tuple& operator=(const tuple<UTypes...>&);
+ template<class... UTypes>
+ constexpr tuple& operator=(const tuple<UTypes...>&) const;
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr tuple& operator=(tuple<UTypes...>&&);
+ template<class... UTypes>
+ constexpr tuple& operator=(tuple<UTypes...>&&) const;
Or, rather than change std::tuple
, we can have zip_view<R...>::value_type
and zip_view<R...>::reference
be an entirely different tuple type than std::tuple
, introducing a second tuple type into the standard library: std2::tuple2
. This just seems like a facially terrible idea, we already have one tuple type, we should just have it solve this problem for is.
We therefore propose that std::tuple<T...>
be constassignable whenever all of T...
are constassignable. And likewise for std::pair<T, U>
, for consistency, the other proxy reference type in the standard libary: std::vector<bool>::reference
.
tuple
that is readable
We encourage everyone to review Eric Niebler’s fourpart series on iterators [niebler.iter.0] [niebler.iter.1] [niebler.iter.2] [niebler.iter.3], as this problem is covered in there in some depth.
There is a fundamental problem with standard library algorithms and how they interact with proxy iterators. One example used in the series is unique_copy
:
// Copyright (c) 1994
// HewlettPackard Company
// Copyright (c) 1996
// Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
template <class InIter, class OutIter, class Fn,
class _Tp>
OutIter
__unique_copy(InIter first, InIter last,
OutIter result,
Fn binary_pred, _Tp*) {
_Tp value = *first;
*result = value;
while (++first != last)
if (!binary_pred(value, *first)) {
value = *first;
*++result = value;
}
return ++result;
}
[…] Note the value local variable on line 11, and especially note line 14, where it passes a value and a reference to binary_pred
. Keep that in mind because it’s important!
[…] Why do I bring it up? Because it’s super problematic when used with proxy iterators. Think about what happens when you try to pass vector<bool>::iterator
to the above __unique_copy
function:
std::vector<bool> vb{true, true, false, false};
using R = std::vector<bool>::reference;
__unique_copy(
vb.begin(), vb.end(),
std::ostream_iterator<bool>{std::cout, " "},
[](R b1, R b2) { return b1 == b2; }, (bool*)0 );
This should write a “true” and a “false” to cout
, but it doesn’t compile. Why? The lambda is expecting to be passed two objects of vector<bool>
‘s proxy reference type, but remember how __unique_copy
calls the predicate:
That’s a bool&
and a vector<bool>::reference
. Ouch!
The blog goes on to point out that one way to resolve this is by having the lambda take both parameters as auto&&
. But having to require a generic lambda is a bit… much. This was the reason we have the idea of a common_reference
. Rewriting the above to be:
using R = std::iter_common_reference_t<std::vector<bool>::reference>;
__unique_copy(
vb.begin(), vb.end(),
std::ostream_iterator<bool>{std::cout, " "},
[](R b1, R b2) { return b1 == b2; }, (bool*)0 );
This now works. And that is now the requirement that we have for iterators, that they be indirectly_readable
 which, among other things, requires that there be a common_reference
between the iterator’s reference
type and the iterator’s value_type&
:
template<class In>
concept indirectlyreadableimpl =
requires(const In in) {
typename iter_value_t<In>;
typename iter_reference_t<In>;
typename iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>;
{ *in } > same_as<iter_reference_t<In>>;
{ ranges::iter_move(in) } > same_as<iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>>;
} &&
common_reference_with<iter_reference_t<In>&&, iter_value_t<In>&> &&
common_reference_with<iter_reference_t<In>&&, iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>&&> &&
common_reference_with<iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>&&, const iter_value_t<In>&>;
template<class In>
concept indirectly_readable =
indirectlyreadableimpl<remove_cvref_t<In>>;
template<class I>
concept input_iterator =
input_or_output_iterator<I> &&
indirectly_readable<I> &&
requires { typename ITER_CONCEPT(I); } &&
derived_from<ITER_CONCEPT(I), input_iterator_tag>;
How does this relate to zip
?
Letting I
be zip_view<R...>::iterator
for some set of ranges R...
, it just follows from first principles that iter_reference_t<I>
should be std::tuple<range_reference_t<R>...>
— dereferencing a zip iterator should give you a tuple of dereferencing all the underlying ranges’ iterators. And then it sort of follows from symmetry that iter_value_t<I>
should be std::tuple<range_value_t<R>...>
. We’ll discuss this in more depth in a later section.
But then what does iter_common_reference_t<I>
end up being?
Let’s pick some concrete types. Taking our earlier example of:
std::vector<int> vi = /* ... */;
std::vector<std::string> vs = /* ... */;
ranges::sort(views::zip(vi, vs));
We have a value type of std::tuple<int, std::string>
and a reference type of std::tuple<int&, std::string&>
. The common reference of those exists: the reference
type is convertible to the value type but not in the other direction, so the common reference is just the value type of std::tuple<int, std::string>
. This might be odd, having a common reference type that has no reference semantics, but it does work. And in some cases you can’t really do better (as in the vector<bool>
example from the blog series, the common reference is bool
).
But where we really run into problems is with noncopyable types. If instead of zipping a std::vector<int>
and a std::vector<std::string>
, we changed the first range to be a std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>>
, what happens? We have a value type of std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>, std::string>
and a reference type of std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>&, std::string&>
, similar to before. But now, neither is convertible to the other.
The constructor overload set of std::tuple
is… intense to say the least. But the relevant ones are:
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple();
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const Types&...); // only if sizeof...(Types) >= 1
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(UTypes&&...); // only if sizeof...(Types) >= 1
tuple(const tuple&) = default;
tuple(tuple&&) = default;
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const tuple<UTypes...>&);
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(tuple<UTypes...>&&);
template<class U1, class U2>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const pair<U1, U2>&); // only if sizeof...(Types) == 2
template<class U1, class U2>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(pair<U1, U2>&&); // only if sizeof...(Types) == 2
We have a converting constructor from std::tuple<U...> const&
, viable if (constructible_from<T, U const&> && ...)
, and a converting constructor std::tuple<U...>&&
, viable if (constructible_from<T, U&&> && ...)
. In both cases, we’re just distributing the qualifiers.
When trying to construct a std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>, std::string>
from a std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>&, std::string&>
, we reject the converting constructor of lines 910 because we can’t construct a std::unique_ptr<int>
from a std::unique_ptr<int> const&
. std::unique_ptr
isn’t copyable, and that’s not going to change.
When trying to construct a std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>&, std::string&>
from an lvalue std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>, std::string>
(the fact that it’s an lvalue is important), we reject that very same converting constructor because we can’t construct a std::unique_ptr<int>&
from a std::unique_ptr<int> const&
. Can’t bind a nonconst lvalue reference to a const lvalue. But we can of course bind a nonconst lvalue reference to a nonconst lvalue.
And indeed that’s how close this is to working. All we need is one more constructor (although we added two here for completeness):
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple();
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const Types&...); // only if sizeof...(Types) >= 1
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(UTypes&&...); // only if sizeof...(Types) >= 1
tuple(const tuple&) = default;
tuple(tuple&&) = default;
+ template<class... UTypes>
+ constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(tuple<UTypes...>&);
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const tuple<UTypes...>&);
template<class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(tuple<UTypes...>&&);
+ template<class... UTypes>
+ constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const tuple<UTypes...>&&);
template<class U1, class U2>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(const pair<U1, U2>&); // only if sizeof...(Types) == 2
template<class U1, class U2>
constexpr explicit(see below) tuple(pair<U1, U2>&&); // only if sizeof...(Types) == 2
If only we had a way to express “a forwarding reference to tuple<UTypes...>
” in the language. But if we add these constructors, then suddenly we can construct a std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>&, std::string&>
from an lvalue std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<int>, std::string>
. And that would just end up binding the references as you would expect.
Such a change to the constructor set of std::tuple
means that all of our zip_view
iterators can actually be indirectly_readable
, which means they can actually count as being iterators. In all cases then, the common reference type of zip iterators would become the reference type. Indeed, this even fixes the issue we mentioned earlier  where even when our underlying types were copyable, we originally ended up with a common reference type of std::tuple<int, std::string>
, a type that does not have reference semantics. But now it would have a common reference type of std::tuple<int&, std::string&>
, which certainly has reference semantics.
We therefore propose that to extend the constructor overload set of std::tuple<T...>
to add converting constructors from std::tuple<U...>&
and std::tuple<U...> const&&
. And likewise for std::pair<T, U>
, for consistency.
zip
and zip_transform
’s value_type
Returning to our favorite example again:
std::vector<int> vi = /* ... */;
std::vector<std::string> vs = /* ... */;
auto a = views::zip(vi, vs);
Let’s talk about a
. The reference type of a
is std::tuple<int&, std::string&>
. That’s really the only option, it’s the whole point of zip
. range_reference_t<zip_view<R...>>
needs to be std::tuple<range_reference_t<R>...>
.
But what’s the value_type
of a
? We ideally want the value_type
to be something without reference semantics, something that we can properly hold onto and have a real copy. For a lot of ranges, the reference
type is some T&
or T const&
and so the value_type
is just T
. But here, our reference
is a prvalue. So we have a choice.
We could do std::remove_cvref_t
on the reference
as usual, that would give us just reference
back, so the value_type
of a
would be std::tuple<int&, std::string&>
. Not really an independent, value type.
Or, since we know what zip
is, we don’t have to guess what a good value_type
might be. We could use the ranges themselves to tell us what that is. Each constituent R
already provides a range_value_t<R>
, and if those choices are good enough for the R
s, they should be good enough for zip
. That is, std::tuple<range_value_t<R>...>
. Which, for a
, would be std::tuple<int, std::string>
.
But there’s a wrinkle here, consider:
The reference
type of b
is necessarily determined by the callable here: invoke_result_t<F&, range_reference_t<R>...>
. In this case, this gives us std::tuple<int&, std::string&>
. Notably, this is exactly the same reference
type as with saw with a
.
But what’s the value_type
of b
? Unlike in the case of zip
, with zip_transform
we really have no idea where the reference
type came from. It need not be any kind of reference at all, it could be… int
. For zip_transform
, we really can’t do much better than remove_cvref_t<invoke_result_t<F&, range_reference_t<R>...>>
— which again gets us back to the same std::tuple<int&, std::string&>
.
A hypothetical different direction would be to introduce a type trait that would inform range adapters how to turn a referencesemantic type to a value type. Something that would turn std::vector<bool>::reference
into bool
, or std::tuple<T&...>
into std::tuple<T...>
. Then other range adapters could have used it themselves.
But views::transform
already exists, and is very similar in nature to views::zip_transform
. Indeed, views::zip_transform(F, E...)
is very nearly views::zip(E...)  views::transform([=](auto&& tup){ return std::apply(F, std::forward<decltype(tup)>(tup)); })
, so any attempt to make zip_transform
’s value_type
line up with zip
’s would mean changing the existing behavior of views::transform
. That makes it unviable to pursue (assuming it were even a good idea to begin with).
The other way to get zip_transform
’s value_type
to be consistent with zip
’s is to abandon the aforementioned symmetry and just use remove_cvref_t
to determine zip
’s value_type
as well. But we find this questionable — we shouldn’t sacrifice zip
at the altar of consistency. It’s really not that big of a deal, it’s an inconsistency that only really surfaces when users would use zip_transform
to do exactly what zip
already does. But why would they do that, when they have zip
?
In short, we propose that:
reference

value_type



zip_view<R...> 
std::tuple<range_reference_t<R>...> 
std::tuple<range_value_t<R>...> 
zip_transform_view<F, R...> 
invoke_result_t<F&, range_reference_t<R>...> 
remove_cvref_t<invoke_result_t<F&, range_reference_t<R>...>> 
Or for this specific example:
reference

value_type



a —zip(vi, vs) 
std::tuple<int&, std::string&> 
std::tuple<int, std::string 
b — zip_transform(std::tie, vi, vs) 
std::tuple<int&, std::string&> 
std::tuple<int&, std::string&> 
We think these would be the most valuable choices.
enumerate
’s first rangeWe wrote earlier that enumerate(r)
can be defined as zip(iota(range_size_t<R>(0)), r)
, but it turns out that this isn’t quite right, and we need to do something slightly different.
It turns out iota
is a fairly complicated view due to wanting to avoid undefined behavior in its difference_type
[P1522R1]. iota_view
has to choose a type that is wide enough to properly compute differences. One of the important points in that paper is that integerlike types are:
Not required to be WeaklyIncrementable
: There is no requirement that a userdefined integerlike type specify what its difference type is. (If we were to require that, then by induction implementors would be on the hook to provide an infiniteprecision integerlike type.) Therefore, iota_view<iter_difference_t<I>>
for an arbitrary iterator I
may in fact be illformed.
Similarly, iota(range_size_t<R>(0))
need not be valid [rangev3.1141]. And, even if it were valid, it may be a wider integer type than would be strictly necessary. But enumerate
is not as generalpurpose as iota
. From Eric Niebler:
However, the enumerate view is special. The iota_view<diffmax_t>
that view::enumerate
constructs will never produce a number less than zero or greater than the maximum diffmax_t
. So diffmax_t
itself has enough bits to be usable as the difference type of iota_view<diffmax_t>::iterator
.
I can solve this problem with a custom index_view
that doesn’t try to promote the index type when computing the difference type.
And this is what rangev3 does: enumerate(r)
is defined as zip(indexview<range_size_t<R>, range_difference_t<R>>(), r)
, where indexview<S, D>
is basically a specialized version of iota
such that range_size_t<indexview<S, D>>
is S
and range_difference_t<indexview<S, D>>
is D
. That is, rather than trying to compute a size and difference types to fit the range, we just use the provided range’s size and difference types. If it’s good enough for R
, it’s good enough for enumerate_view<R>
!
This indexview
can be expositiononly, it’s effectively an implementation detail of enumerate
.
adjacent
mean 2
or n
?In C++20, we have the range adapters keys
and values
which are actually specified as elements<0>
and elements<1>
, respectively, where elements<N>
is a generic range adapter that picks the N
th part from a range of tuples.
Now consider adjacent
. This view could simply mean to take elements twoatatime, taking a range of T
and producing a range of (T, T)
(as a tuple). But there isn’t anything particularly special about two, just that it’d probably be the most used value. There’s not much additional specification effort to create a range adapter that takes elements natatime and produces a range of ntuple. In that case, we could specify adjacent
as slide_as_tuple<2>
(this closely resembles the algorithm slide
described later, the difference being that here we need the value as a constant expression to produce a range of tuples, while there we produce a range of ranges). Alternatively, adjacent
itself could be the generic algorithm and we could introduce a specialized name to mean adjacent<2>
. For instance, Python calls this pairwise
and Kotlin calls it zipWithNext
.
group_by
familyThis family, as the name suggests, take a range of T
and groups them based on some provided function function. group_by
is one of the most consistently named algorithms across all languages (modulo choice of spelling, as in groupBy
or groupby
) yet there are actually threeish different approaches to what this algorithm actually means:
(T, T) > bool
, and invoke this predicate on consecutive elements and start a new group when that predicate returns false
. Using Haskell notation, we’re taking a [T]
(range of T
) and producing a [[T]]
(range of range of T
).T > U
(such that U
models equality_comparable
), and group consecutive elements with the same U
. Following the law of useful return, these algorithms don’t just give you a [[T]]
back, they rather give you a [(U, [T])]
— the algorithm had to compute the U
s for each element so they should give it to the user.T > U
, and return a dictionary that maps every U
to a list of T
s that mapped to it.Haskell, Elixir, D (chunkBy
), and rangev3 (~ish) provide the first kind. Rust, Python, D (also chunkBy
— it allows both uses), and F# provide the second. Clojure, Kotlin, and Scala provide the third.
Swift recently announced its own set of algorithms [swift.algorithms]. It provides the first kind as chunked(by: f)
and the second kind as chunked(on: f)
(Swift allows overloading based on named function arguments).
rangev3 is mostly in the first category, except its implementation choice is quite different from the other languages. It always compares the first element in each subrange with each subsequent one, while the others always compare consecutive elements. As such, they may yield very different results:
>>> groupBy (<=) [1,2,2,3,1,2,0,4,5,2]
[[1,2,2,3],[1,2],[0,4,5],[2]]  Haskell's implementation
[[1,2,2,3,1,2],[0,4,5,2]]  rangev3's implementation
In Haskell, the second 1
starts a new group because we’re comparing it with its previous element and 3 <= 1
is false
. But in rangev3, the second 1
does not start a new group because we’re comparing it with the first element of the group, and 1 <= 1
is true
. We think the Haskell/Elixir/D choice is more familiar and more useful.
It’s also worth noting that technically Haskell has two different groupBy
functions: Data.List.groupBy
(which does what rangev3 does) and Data.List.GroupBy.groupBy
(which does what we’re stating Haskell’s implementation really is). This newer one is even called the “Replacement definition” in its docs [haskell.groupby].
The question is which one of the three options would we want to pick for C++Next?
Well, when it comes to algorithms, the more the better. We think it’s clear we wouldn’t want to pick the 3rd option (we can easily produce a dictionary from the 2nd option), so the question is between the first two. While the binary version of group_by
is more generic (since you approximate the unary version in terms of it, even it’s a different shape) and thus more broadly applicable, the unary version also comes up frequently and as such we feel that we should provide both.
We could hypothetically follow the D model and provide both under the same name, selecting based on whether the provided callable is a unary invocable or a binary predicate — but we’re not sure if that’s the best idea.
Given the time and bandwidth pressure, we think the top priority is the binary group_by
and the unary form, while still very useful, should be a Tier 2 addition.
As far as naming goes, our preferred naming is:
chunk_by
takes a binary predicatechunk_on
(or perhaps chunk_by_key
or chunk_on_key
) takes a unary transform and produces a range of pairs (as D, Rust, and Python do, but Swift does not)This would give us three range adaptors that produce nonoverlapping ranges of ranges that include every element of the original range exactly once:
chunk
, which takes a number (described here)chunk_by
, which takes a binary predicatechunk_on
(or whatever), which takes a unary projectionAnd we think that it’s nice that all of these algorithms have the same root. There are other algorithms that produces ranges of ranges, but they either exclude some elements (split
) or repeat some elements (slide
).
Additionally, just recently, rangev3 just added a views::chunk_by
that does exactly as suggested here (comparing consecutive elements, as opposed to rangev3 preexisting views::group_by
which compares against the first in group).
This is proposed in [P2443R0].
We added views::transform
in C++20, but there are closely related views in that family, which several other languages also provide.
views::transform
takes a range of T
and a function T > U
and produces a range of U
. But we can play around with the shape of the callable to produce two other extremely useful adapters:
T > RangeOf<U>
and produce a range of U
. That is, take the resulting range and flatten it out into a single range.T > optional<U>
and produce a range of U
from those resulting optionals that are engaged.The former is commonly known as flat_map
(because it’s a map
followed by a flatten
), although C++20’s version of flatten
is named join
and C++20’s version of map
is named transform
. So perhaps this adapter should be named join_transform
or transform_join
? Eughh?
The latter is called filter_map
in Rust and compactMap
in Swift. Neither strike us as great names either. A Haskell package calls this mapMaybe
which informs our proposed name: transform_maybe
.
There really aren’t any particular thorny library issues to resolve here, simply a question of specification.
flat_map
flat_map(E, F)
is, following the adoption of [P2328R1], exactly join(transform(E, F))
.
Prior to that paper, it used to be the case that if the callable returned a prvalue range that is not a view
(a seemingly specific constraint that is actually a very common usecase  consider a function returning a vector<int>
), then the join
would fail. The workaround for this was a range adaptor in rangev3 called cache1
, but that adaptor has other design issues (described in the above paper) and as a result is not considered a high priority right now.
Given that, we could specify views::flat_map(E, F)
as expressionequivalent to views::join(views::transform(E, F))
. It’s not clear that there is a more efficient way to implement this (unlike the case of, say, views::tail
vs views::drop(1)
described earlier), so we could add this as a trivial alias. We don’t have examples of aliases like this in the standard library today (keys
is an alias for elements<0>
, but that’s still a single adaptor).
transform_maybe
For transform_maybe
, [P1255R6] seeks to address this problem but requires using three chained adapters:
inline constexpr auto transform_maybe1 = [](auto&& f){
return views::transform(FWD(f))
 views::transform(views::maybe)
 views::join;
};
This is an expensive implementation. Not only do we need three adapters, but join
is a very complex adapter and we have an extremely specialized case here that is much simpler. Moreover, the result of transform_maybe1
is always an input range only (we are joining a range of prvalue ranges).
We could get the same behavior out of three simpler adapters in a different way in C++20:
inline constexpr auto transform_maybe2 = [](auto&& f){
return views::transform(FWD(f))
 views::filter([](auto&& e) > decltype(static_cast<bool>(e)) {
return static_cast<bool>(e);
})
 views::transform([](auto&& e) > decltype(decaycopy(*FWD(e))) {
return decaycopy(*FWD(e));
});
};
This implementation can now potentially be a bidirectional range (instead of input
only) thanks to avoiding join
, but it still uses three adapters.
Both of these implementations have the issue of doing unnecessary extra copies. Let’s say we have a range of T
and a bunch of example functions, what would we want the resulting filter_map
’s reference type to be?
function

desired reference type

maybe result

filter result


T > A* 
A& 
A& 
A 
T > std::optional<B> const& 
B const& 
B& 
B 
T > std::optional<C> 
C 
C& 
C 
T > boost::optional<D&> 
D& 
D& 
D 
The maybe
implementation always yields lvalue references, the transformfiltertransform
implementation always yields prvalues. The latter is predictable  we always copy out  whereas the former doesn’t need to copy the D
, although it does copy the B
despite perhaps looking as if it does not (it does copy the C
, and needs to, although it likewise might appear as if it does not).
We can provide the desired result with a more complex version of the final transform
by only decaying xvalues:
inline constexpr auto transform_maybe3 = [](auto&& f){
return views::transform(FWD(f))
 views::filter([](auto&& e) > decltype(static_cast<bool>(e)) {
return static_cast<bool>(e);
})
 views::transform([](auto&& e) requires requires { *e; } > decltype(auto) {
if constexpr (std::is_rvalue_reference_v<decltype(*FWD(e))>) {
return decaycopy(*FWD(e));
} else {
return *FWD(e);
}
});
};
This is certainly quite a bit more complicated than the views::tail
implementation suggested earlier!
But we don’t want to specify it like that either. Even transform3
has a huge problem: how many times do we invoke the callable? Ideally, if we’re just traversing the resulting range one time, we’d invoke the function one time per element in the input range. But that’s not actually the case here  we would have to end up invoking the function twice in the case that it yields an engaged optional
. This follows directly from the underlying iterator model: the transform_view
’s iterator::operator*
invokes the function, while filter_view
’s iterator::operator++
does a find_if
. For elements that are filtered in, there would be one dereference during the operator++
to stop searching and then again to actually propagate the value in the filter_view
’s iterator::operator*
. This could be resolved by adding yet another adapter that we already mentioned:
inline constexpr auto transform_maybe4 = [](auto&& f){
return views::transform(FWD(f))
 views::cache_latest
 views::filter([](auto&& e) > decltype(static_cast<bool>(e)) {
return static_cast<bool>(e);
})
 views::transform([](auto&& e) requires requires { *e; } > decltype(auto) {
if constexpr (std::is_rvalue_reference_v<decltype(*FWD(e))>) {
return decaycopy(*FWD(e));
} else {
return *FWD(e);
}
});
};
We think that transform_view
merits a firstclass view to accomplish this functionality not only because the above is very involved but also because it still has unnecessary overhead  it’d be nice to avoid instantiating four views when one is sufficient, along with all the wrapping that entails.
However, because of the cache_latest
dependency (see also [P2328R1]), we’re kicking this one down to Tier 2.
Conor talks about this family of ranges in a CppCon 2019 lighting talk [hoekstra.cppcon].
chunk(N)
breaks a range into nonoverlapping ranges of length N
. views::iota(0,10)  views::chunk(4)
yields [[0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7],[8,9]]
. Note that the last range has length less than 4. See [P2442R0].slide(N)
is very similar to chunk
except its subranges are overlapping and all have length exactly N
. views::iota(0,10)  views::slide(4)
yields [[0,1,2,3],[1,2,3,4],[2,3,4,5],[3,4,5,6],[4,5,6,7],[5,6,7,8],[6,7,8,9]]
. Note that slide(2)
is similar to adjacent
, except that the latter yields a range of tuples (i.e. having compiletime size) whereas here we have a range of ranges (still having runtime size). rangev3 calls this sliding
, which has a different tense from the other two, so we change it to slide
here. See [P2442R0].stride(N)
takes every N
th element. views::iota(0, 10)  views::stride(4)
yields [0,4,8]
. Note that unlike the other two, this one is not a range of ranges, but still fits in with this family. See [P1899R0].These are three specific examples of a general algorithm that takes three parameters: the size of the subranges to return, the size of the step to take after each subrange, and whether to include partial ranges. Kotlin calls this algorithm windowed
, Scala calls it sliding
, D calls it slide
, Haskell calls it divvy
, and Clojure calls it partition
.
Algorithm

Step

Size

Partial


generic 
n 
k 
b 
chunk 
k 
k 
true 
slide 
1 
k 
false 
stride 
k 
1 
N/A 
The above table isn’t quite right  since stride
does not give you a range of ranges, so it would unfortunately not be implementable in terms of generic
. And as with tail
vs drop
, we have the question here of should chunk
and slide
each be firstclass views or should they both be implemented in terms of generic
? Implementing in terms of generic
saves specification effort and gives us a more generic algorithm, but means we would have to store two extra data members than would be necessary in firstclass implementation.
Moreover, as a language without named arguments, we have a different problem when it comes to generic
here. It takes two int
s and a bool
. There is no natural order for these parameters, so who knows what generic(1, 4, false)
means — especially since generic(false, 1, 4)
would also compile. This suggests simply not having it as a userfacing algorithm. Or we could use an aggregate to mock up named arguments via designatedinitializers, as in generic({.step=1, .size=4, .partial=false})
. This is a very useful pattern, but one which has no precedent in the standard library as of this writing.
Ultimately, we don’t think an algorithm like generic
would necessarily be useful for C++, and it wouldn’t really help much in specifying either chunk
or slide
(and definitely not stride
). But these are important algorithms that come up frequently enough to be in consideration for Tier 1.
In C++20 already we have several views that pass through some subset of the initial range — without modifying any of the elements. Those are: take
, take_while
, drop
, and drop_while
. There are actually many more algorithms in this family that are all quite similar. Nearly all of these range adapters can be implemented in terms of adapters that already exist, although we can typically do better if we make them all firstclass. The question is really what is it that we want to do here?
We already discussed the example of tail
earlier — should this be a firstclass view or is drop(1)
sufficient? The same question applies to most of the views in this list, and we generally have the same answer for all of them: if we’re okay with derivative implementations, then we might as well make all of them Tier 1 since they would all have singlesentence specifications; but if we want better implementations, then they’re certainly not important enough to gain get top priority, so we would move them down to Tier 2 or Tier 3.
The potential adoption of >
as a language feature [P2011R1] also affects the calculus here, as most of these could also be implemented as simple functions and relying on >
instead of 
to do the piping. For example, tail
could be implemented ([P1739R4] notwithstanding):
template <viewable_range R>
auto tail(R&& range) {
auto b = ranges::begin(range);
auto e = ranges::end(range);
if (b != e) {
++b;
}
return subrange(b, e);
}
We’ll go through the other potential range adapters in this family and discuss how they could be implemented in terms of existing adapters:
take_last(N)
and drop_last(N)
. views::take_last(N)
is equivalent to views::reverse  views::take(N)  views::reverse
. But this is somewhat expensive, especially for noncommon views. For randomaccess, sized ranges, we’re probably want r  views::take_last(N)
to evaluate as r  views::drop(r.size()  N)
, and that desire is really the crux of this whole question — is the equivalent version good enough or should we want to do it right?take_last_while(P)
and drop_last_while(P)
. These likewise could be implemented in terms of doublereverse, but take_last_while
could not be implemented in terms of drop_while
.take_exactly(N)
and drop_exactly(N)
. These are similar to take
and drop
except not checked. iota(0, 3)  take(5)
is a valid empty range, while iota(0, 3)  take_exactly(5)
is undefined behavior.slice(M, N)
is equivalent to views::drop(M)  views::take(N  M)
, and you couldn’t do much better as a first class view. rangev3 also supports a flavor that works as views::slice(M, end  N)
for a special variable end
, which likewise be equivalent to r  views::drop(M)  views::drop_last(N)
.head
is equivalent to views::drop_last(1)
.tail
is equivalent to views::drop(1)
.trim(P)
is equivalent to views::drop_while(P)  views::drop_last_while(P)
.delimit(V)
has two flavors. When called with a range, r  views::delimit(V)
is equivalent to r  views::take_while([V](auto&& e) { return !(e == V); })
. But it also allows wrapping an iterator, such that views::delimit(it, V)
is equivalent to subrange(it, unreachable_sentinel)  views::delimit(V)
.We’re tentatively labelling the more complicated ones here Tier 2 and the more trivial (i.e. head
, tail
, and slice
) and possibly less needed (i.e. meow_exactly
) ones Tier 3.
There are several views on the list that are simply factories — they cannot be piped into. So we’ll consider them as their own family:
cartesian_product(E...)
takes a bunch of ranges and yields a range of tuples that are the Cartesian product of those ranges.concat(E...)
concatenates a bunch of ranges together, it must be a standalone range. It is also sometimes called chain
.generate(F)
takes a nullary function F
and produces an infinite range of invoking that function.generate_n(F, N)
is equivalent to generate(F)  views::take(N)
.linear_distribute(B, E, N)
produces a range of N
values linearly distributed from B
to E
.repeat(V)
is an infinite range of a single value, equivalent to generate([V]{ return V; })
.repeat_n(V, N)
is N
copies of V
, equivalent to generate_n([V]{ return V; }, N)
.These vary wildly in complexity (repeat
is certainly far simpler than cartesian_product
). But cartesian_product
comes up sufficiently often and are sufficiently complicated to merit Tier 1 priority.
The rest, we consider lower priority. And generate
and generate_n
in particular need special care to deal with 16.4.6.10 [res.on.data.races]. The current implementation of generate_n
in rangev3 has a data race.
Other range adapters that we haven’t talked about yet, but aren’t sure how to group exactly, are:
adjacent_filter(P)
is an extension of filter
that rather than taking a unary predicate and going one element at a take takes a binary predicate and goes pairwise through the elements. Similar to adjacent  filter(applied(P))  views::keys
except that it always keeps the first element.adjacent_remove_if(P)
is similar to adjacent_filter(not_fn(P))
, except that it always keeps the last element.cycle(R)
produces an infinite ranges that, well, cycles through R
repeatedly.scan(R, F, V)
is the lazy view version of std::inclusive_scan
, except not having a defaulted binary operation.intersperse(V)
produces a new range alternating selecting elements from the source range and the value V
join_with(V)
. C++20 has a version of join
that does not take a delimiter, but we really do need a version that provides one as well. The issue with taking a delimiter is that there is an ambiguity with what r  views::join(v)
means, if v
happens to itself be a joinable range. rangev3 assumes that if v
is a joinable range that views::join(v)
joins it without a delimiter. We think this ship has sailed in C++20, and it would be better to introduce join_with
that requires a delimiter. See [P2441R0].partial_sum(R)
is equivalent to scan(R, std::plus<>())
.split_when(P)
is a more complicated version of split
that rather than taking a value or a range, instead takes a predicate that could also return an iterator.sample(N)
yields a random sample of the given length.There are other combinatoric generators that also could be explored. For example, Python has itertools.product
, itertools.combinations
, and itertools.combination_with_replacement
which all operate on a single range of T
and produce a range of range of T
.
Of these, views::join_with
fills in an incomplete aspect of the alreadyexisting views::join
, so we feel that it is a Tier 1 view. The rest we consider to have lower priority.
transform
Several of the above views that are labeled “not proposed” are variations on a common theme: addressof
, indirect
, and move
are all basically wrappers around transform
that take std::addressof
, std::dereference
(a function object we do not have at the moment), and std::move
, respectively. Basically, but not exactly, since one of those functions doesn’t exist yet and the other three we can’t pass as an argument anyway.
But some sort of broader ability to pass functions into functions would mostly alleviate the need for these. views::addressof
is shorter than views::transform(LIFT(std::addressof))
(assuming a LIFT
macro that wraps a name and emits a lambda), but we’re not sure that we necessarily need to add special cases of transform
for every useful function.
views::as_const
There’s one that stands out as being slightly different though: views::as_const
isn’t quite the same as a transform
over std::as_const
, because of the existence of proxy references. std::as_const
only accepts lvalues, so something like:
would not compile. And were it to compile, what should it actually mean? zip
’s reference
type here, as previously discussed, should be std::tuple<int&>
. What would a const
view over this range mean? Should we transparently propagate prvalues, thereby being a shallow const
, and produce a new range whose reference
is std::tuple<int&>
? Or should we somehow come up with a way to do deep const
ness here and yield a range whose reference
is std::tuple<int const&>
? The latter noting that we are not doing this sort of introspection for views::zip_transform
.
In rangev3, the reference
type is common_reference_t<range_value_t<R> const&&, range_reference_t<R>>
. In this particular example, that would be std::tuple<int const&>
(following the various tuple
changes performed to implement zip
in [P2321R2]), which is exactly what you want.
Having a const
view over a range is something that seems inherently useful and is more complex than simply a transform
over std::as_const
, and has proven to be in high demand. The full design is explored in [P2278R1] and is Tier 1 material.
The largest chunk of C++20 Ranges were the algorithms, and the work here has been very thorough. All the <algorithm>
s have been rangeified, which has been fantastic.
But there are a few algorithms that aren’t in <algorithm>
that do not have rangebased versions: those that are in <numeric>
. These are often the last algorithms considered for anything, they were the last algorithms that were made constexpr
([P1645R1]) and now are the last to become rangebased. They are:
Algorithm

Priority


iota 
Tier 1 
shift_left 
Tier 1 
shift_right 
Tier 1 
accumulate 
Tier 1, renamed to fold . 
reduce 
Tier 2, along with sum and product . 
transform_reduce 
Not proposed. 
inner_product 
Not proposed. 
adjacent_difference 
Tier 3, renamed to adjacent_transform 
partial_sum 
Tier 3, but without a binary operation parameter. Also adding partial_fold . 
inclusive_scan 
Tier 3 
exclusive_scan 
Tier 3 
transform_inclusive_scan 
Not proposed. 
transform_exclusive_scan 
Not proposed. 
What to do about these algorithms? Well, one of the big motivations for Ranges was the ability to actually compose algorithms. This severely reduces the need for the combinatorial explosion of algorithms  all the transform_meow
algorithms are transform
followed by meow
, so we probably don’t need separate rangebased algorithms for those.
Four of these (accumulate
, reduce
, transform_reduce
, and inner_product
) return a value, while the other seven output a range (one through a pair of writable iterators and the other six through an output iterator). We’ll consider these separately.
std::accumulate
→ ranges::fold
We think having a rangebased leftfold algorithm in the standard library is very important, since this is such a fundamental algorithm. Indeed, several of the other standard library algorithms are simple folds — for instance count
, count_if
, max_element
, min_element
, minmax_element
, and inner_product
. We don’t have a generic rangebased max
or min
(just ones that takes an initializer_list
), but those would also be a leftfolds. As such , we think adding such a leftfold to the standard library is a top tier priority for C++23. Except that we think this algorithm should be named ranges::fold
 the problem with the name accumulate
is that it is strongly suggestive of addition, which makes uses of it over different operations just very strange. fold
is what the algorithm is, and has no such emphasis. It’s the more generic name, for the most generic algorithm.
[P1813R0] goes through the work of introducing a set of constraints for these algorithms, and its suggestion for this algorithm is:
template <input_range R, movable T, class Proj = identity,
indirect_magma<const T*, projected<iterator_t<R>, Proj>, T*> BOp = ranges::plus>
constexpr accumulate_result<safe_iterator_t<R>, T>
accumulate(R&& r, T init, BOp bop = {}, Proj proj = {});
We think this is a bad direction, for three reasons.
First, we should not default the binary operation at all. Having a default fold
operation doesn’t make much sense  it’s reasonable for ranges::sort
to default to sorting by <
, since the entire standard library is built on <
as the primary comparison operator, but that doesn’t really hold for +
. Instead, we should add separate named algorithms ranges::sum
and ranges::product
that just invoke ranges::fold
with std::plus()
and std::multiplies()
– or more likely that these invoke ranges::reduce
instead as the more efficient algorithm with more constraints.
Second, the above definition definitely follows Alexander Stepanov’s law of useful return [stepanov] (emphasis ours):
When writing code, it’s often the case that you end up computing a value that the calling function doesn’t currently need. Later, however, this value may be important when the code is called in a different situation. In this situation, you should obey the law of useful return: A procedure should return all the potentially useful information it computed.
But it makes the usage of the algorithm quite cumbersome. The point of a fold is to return the single value. We would just want to write:
Rather than:
or:
ranges::fold
should just return T
. This would be consistent with what the other rangebased folds already return in C++20 (e.g. ranges::count
returns a range_difference_t<R>
, ranges::any_of
 which can’t quite be a fold
due to wanting to shortcircuit  just returns bool
).
Third, these constraints are far too restrictive. Copying the proposed definition of magma
and indirect_magma
here for readability:
// section 3.2.2 from P1813R0
template <class BOp, class T, class U>
concept magma =
common_with<T, U> &&
regular_invocable<BOp, T, T> &&
regular_invocable<BOp, U, U> &&
regular_invocable<BOp, T, U> &&
regular_invocable<BOp, U, T> &&
common_with<invoke_result_t<BOp&, T, U>, T> &&
common_with<invoke_result_t<BOp&, T, U>, U> &&
same_as<invoke_result_t<BOp&, T, U>, invoke_result_t<BOp&, U, T>>;
Let bop
be an object of type BOp
, t
be an object of type T
, and u
be an object of type U
. The value invoke(bop, t, u)
must return a result that is representable by common_type_t<T, U>
.
The decision to require common types for a over magma<T, U>
is similar to the reason that equality_comparable_with
requires common_reference_with
: this ensures that when an algorithm requires a magma
,we are able to equationally reason about those requirements. It’s possible to overload operator+(int,vector<int> const&)
, but that doesn’t follow the canonical usage of +
. Does 1 + vector{1, 2, 3}
mean “concatenate vector{1, 2, 3}
to the end of a temporary vector{1}
”? Is it a shorthand for accumulate(vector{1, 2, 3}, 1)
? The intention is unclear, and so std::plus<>
should not model magma<int, vector<int>>
.
// section 3.2.11 from P1813R0
template <class BOp, class I1, class I2, class O>
concept indirect_magma =
readable<I1> &&
readable<I2> &&
writable<O, indirect_result_t<BOp&, I1, I2>> &&
magma<BOp&, iter_value_t<I1>&, iter_value_t<I2>&> &&
magma<BOp&, iter_value_t<I1>&, iter_reference_t<I2>&> &&
magma<BOp&, iter_reference_t<I1>, iter_value_t<I2>&> &&
magma<BOp&, iter_reference_t<I1>, iter_reference_t<I2>> &&
magma<BOp&, iter_common_reference_t<I1>, iter_common_reference_t<I2>>;
We see here again the heavy association of plus
with accumulate
, hence again the desire to rename the algorithm to fold
. But the important thing to consider here is the requirement that the binary function need be invokable on each type and that there need be a common type for the result. We’ve already been through this process with the ranges comparison algorithms in [P1716R3] and removed those restrictions.
Consider a simple fold counting the occurences of a string (i.e. how you would implement ranges::count
with ranges::fold
):
std::vector<std::string> words = /* ... */;
int n = ranges::fold(words, 0, [](int accum, std::string const& w){
return accum + (w == "range");
});
Such an algorithm would not meet the requirements laid out in P1813. There’s no common type between int
and string
, that lambda is only invocable with one of the possible four orders of arguments. But it’s a perfectly reasonable fold. Instead, the only allowed implementation would be:
But we’re hardpressed to explain why this would be considered better. In the general case, there may not even be an allowed implementation. Consider wanting to score a word in Scrabble. In Scrabble, each letter has a value but each tile can either multiply the score of a single letter or multiple the score of the whole word. One way to compute the score then is to use two fold
s, one to figure out the world multiplier and another to figure out the letter sum:
struct Square { int letter_multiplier, word_multiplier; };
vector<Square> squares = /* ... */;
vector<int> letters = /* ... */;
int score = fold(squares, 1, multiplies(), &Square::word_multiplier)
* fold(zip_transform(multiplies(),
squares  views::transform(&Square::letter_multiplier),
letters),
0, plus());
Another way is to keep a running sum of the two parts separately, and do a manual multiply:
struct Accum {
int result() const { return total * multiplier; };
int multiplier, total;
};
int score = fold(zip(squares, letters), Accum(), [](Accum a, auto const& sq_let){
auto [sq, letter] = sq_letter;
return Accum{
.multiplier = a.multiplier * sq.word_multiplier,
.total = a.total + sq.letter_multiplier * letter
};
}).result();
We’re not trying to argue that the second solution is necessarily better than the first  merely that it is a perfectly adequate solution, that happens to not be able to meet the constraints as laid out in P1813.
Instead, we suggest a much lighter set of restrictions on fold
: simply that this is a binary operation:
template <class F, class T, class U>
concept foldable =
regular_invocable<F&, T, U> &&
convertible_to<invoke_result_t<F&, T, U>, T>;
template <class F, class T, class I>
concept indirectlybinaryfoldable =
indirectly_readable<I> &&
copy_constructible<F> &&
foldable<F, T, iter_value_t<I>> &&
foldable<F, T, iter_reference_t<I>> &&
foldable<F, T, iter_common_reference_t<I>>;
template <input_range R, movable T, class Proj = identity,
indirectlybinaryfoldable<T, projected<iterator_t<R>, Proj>> BinaryOperation>
constexpr T fold(R&& r, T init, BinaryOperation op, Proj proj = {}) {
range_iterator_t<R> b = begin(r);
range_sentinel_t<R> e = end(r);
for (; b != e; ++b) {
init = op(std::move(init), proj(*b));
}
return init;
}
For more on this fold, along with several other fold algorithms, see [P2322R4].
ranges::reduce
We have this interesting situation in the standard library today where std::accumulate
has a name strongly suggestive of addition, yet because it’s specified to invoke its binary operation serially, it has no additional requirements on that operation. But we also have std::reduce
, which is a much more generic name with no suggested underlying operation, yet has very strong semantic constraints on its operation: it must be both associative and commutative. This comes from [N3408], emphasis ours:
Thrust has no accumulate
algorithm. Instead, it introduces the analogous thrust::reduce
, which requires stricter semantics from its userspecified sum operator to allow a parallel implementation. Specifically, thrust::reduce
requires mathematical associativity and commutativity of its userspecified sum operator. This allows the algorithm implementor discretion to parallelize the sum. We chose the name reduce
for this algorithm because we believe that most existing parallel programmers are familiar with the idea of a parallel reduction. Other names for this algorithm exist, e.g., fold
. However,we did not select a name derived from fold
because other languages tend to impose a nonassociative directionality to the operation. [cf. Haskell’s foldl
& foldr
, Scala’s foldLeft
& foldRight
]
While ranges::fold
should have minimal constraints, that is not the case for a future ranges::reduce
. As with std::reduce
, we would need to enforce that the binary operation is both associative and commutative. This calls for the kinds of constrains that [P1813R0] is proposing. As it is a more complex set of constraints, we suggest that this is a Tier 2 algorithm, with no default operation. Given the previous suggestion of ranges::fold
not having a default operation either, we also suggest the addition of a ranges::sum
and a ranges::product
that simply invoke ranges::reduce
with std::plus()
and std::multiplies()
, respectively, with an initial value defaulted to range_value_t<R>()
and range_value_t<R>{1}
, respectively.
The naming here is somewhat problematic. reduce
is, in general, a much better name than accumulate
as it does not have any particular operation connotation. But it has additional requirements on the operation. With the suggested change in name, we would end up having both fold
and reduce
— names that seem synonymous and interchangeable, though they are not. We feel that this is probably okay though, since people already frequently think reduce
is “just” the parallel version of accumulate
and perhaps having fold
and reduce
both would make users more likely to consult the documentation?
ranges::transform_reduce
and ranges::inner_product
These two algorithms are different from the previous two in that they are less fundamental. transform_reduce
is a binary transform
followed by reduce
while inner_product
is a binary transform
followed by accumulate
. First, inner_product
, much like accumulate
, is a bad name for the algorithm as it strongly prejudices product
as the binary transform operation and as such uses of the algorithm with any other function simply look bizarre. From the cppreference example for inner_product
:
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> a{0, 1, 2, 3, 4};
std::vector<int> b{5, 4, 2, 3, 1};
int r1 = std::inner_product(a.begin(), a.end(), b.begin(), 0);
std::cout << "Inner product of a and b: " << r1 << '\n';
int r2 = std::inner_product(a.begin(), a.end(), b.begin(), 0,
std::plus<>(), std::equal_to<>());
std::cout << "Number of pairwise matches between a and b: " << r2 << '\n';
}
Second, and more importantly, with Ranges allowing us to compose algorithms properly, do we even need these at all? Consider again the above example and how it might be written with and without specialized algorithms:
Specialized

Composed


Even though the ranges::fold
construction is more complicated, it’s also easier to see the groupings and understand what’s going on. The composed construction also allows for arbitrarily many ranges, not simply two.
There is also the question of projections. With transform_reduce
and inner_product
, there are three ranges that could be projected: each range into the binary grouping operation, and the result of that grouping. This makes it exceedingly awkward if you only want to provide exactly one of those projections:
Specialized

Composed


We think that once we add ranges::fold
as Tier 1 [P2322R2] and ranges::reduce
as Tier 2, we do not actually have a need for either a ranges::transform_reduce
or a ranges::inner_product
(which would also save us from having to come up with a name for the latter).
iota
is the easiest one to consider here. We already have views::iota
in C++20, which importantly means that we already have all the correct constraints in place. In that sense, it almost takes less time to adopt ranges::iota
than it would take to discuss whether or not it’s worth spending time adopting it.
But that does not hold for the other algorithms.
shift_left
and shift_right
shift_left
and shift_right
fall into a similar boat as iota
, but aren’t completely without questions. [P1243R4] originally proposed these, but were dropped from the paper based on discussion about the return type. shift_right
has a straightforward return type of subrange(new_first, last)
. But what should shift_left
return?
If, for consistency, it returns subrange(first, new_last)
then we don’t return last
— even though we probably had to to compute it, unlike most of the other ranges
algorithms. Most, but not all (is_sorted
, count
, and the proposed fold
do not, for instance). Also, if n == 0
or n >= last  first
, then shift_left(r, n)
does nothing  so should it just return subrange(first, first)
? That question will still have to be answered.
std::adjacent_difference
→ ranges::adjacent_transform
std::adjacent_difference
joins std::accumulate
and std::inner_product
in the list of algorithms prejudicially named after a specific operation. We do not yet have views::adjacent_transform
(Tier 1 above), and this would be the algorithm version of those views:
Specialized

Composed


Even though we’re increasing the length of the expression as we go, and arguably increasing the complexity of the construction as well, we’re also lowering the surface area of the API by taking advantage of composition. These become even better with the adoption of the pipeline operator in [P2011R1]:
Specialized

Composed


This begs the question: do we actually need to have a ranges::adjacent_transform
at all? This question needs to be answered, and its existence lowers the priority of the rangeification of such algorithms relative to the adoption of their corresponding range adapters.
std::partial_sum
→ ranges::partial_fold
and std::{in,ex}clusive_scan
We saw in the catamorphism section that we have a pair of algorithms, std::accumulate
and std::reduce
, that solve basically the same problem except that one prejudices a particular operation (std::accumulate
suggests +
) while the other has the more generic name yet is actually more restrictive (std::reduce
requires both the operation to be both associative and commutative, std::accumulate
does not require either).
We have the exact same issue here, std::partial_sum
is strongly suggestive of +
, while std::inclusive_scan
is the more genericallynamed algorithm that nevertheless imposes the stronger restriction (in this case, just associativity).
Our suggestion for what to do with std::partial_sum
and std::{in,ex}clusive_scan
thus mirrors our suggestion for what we did with std::accumulate
and std::reduce
:
std::partial_sum
to ranges::partial_fold
(since it’s a fold
that also yields partial results), which will have neither a defaulted binary operation nor associativity requirements.ranges::{in,ex}clusive_scan
ranges::partial_sum
that is hardcoded to use std::plus()
as the binary operation, which internally forwards to ranges::inclusive_scan
(not ranges::partial_fold
, since we know addition is associative).As we discussed with the question of the need for adjacent_difference
, there would also be the question of whether we need these algorithms at all. As such, we ascribe them fairly low priority.
transform_{in,ex}clusive_scan
Similar to the question of transform_reduce
and inner_product
, we don’t think we need a:
once we can write
or even
The latter two having the nice property that you don’t have to remember the order of operations of the operations. We don’t think we need these at all.
One of the C++17 additions was the introduction of the parallel algorithms by way of the Parallelism TS [P0024R2]. But with Ranges, we don’t have parallel overloads of any of the algorithms yet. How should we prioritize adding parallel overloads for the range algorithms?
The most important issue to consider is: with all the ongoing work on executors, we very much want to ensure that the parallel overloads we define will end up working. The status quo in the standard library is that the ExecutionPolicy
parameter is constrained on is_execution_policy_v<remove_cvref_t<ExecutionPolicy>>
. Is that good enough for executors? It might not be, and it would be extremely disappointing to adopt executors in a way that is incompatible with a bunch of parallel algorithms we just added. This needs careful consideration by somebody familiar with executors.
The second issue is that there are additional requirements imposed on the parallel overloads as compared to the sequential ones (see 25.3 [algorithms.parallel] as well as [P0836R1]). Those requirements would need to be somehow captured in concepts. Even if the type trait is considered sufficient for executors going forward, the concepts work is still necessary.
And for those algorithms which we do not yet have rangebased overloads, we still have exactly the same issue for why we don’t have rangebased overloads yet: what are the concepts that we need to constrain the various parameters?
Due to the executor dependency and the need to be careful about specifying the concepts for parallel requirements, we consider this Tier 2.
There are really three kinds of operations that exist in rangev3:
sort
), produce a value (e.g. max_element
), both (partition
), or produce a new range by way of an output iterator or output range (e.g. copy
).While we have rangebased algorithms and views in C++20, we do not yet have any actions. rangev3 comes with many actions, some of which are the action flavor of views and some of which are the action flavor of algorithms. The full list is: drop
, drop_while
, erase
, insert
, join
, push_back
, push_front
, remove_if
, remove
, reverse
, shuffle
, slice
, sort
, split
, stable_sort
, stride
, take
, take_while
, transform
, unique
, and unstable_remove_if
.
The advantage of these actions is that unlike the algorithms, they compose, and unlike the views, you can pass rvalue ranges to them. From the examples in the rangev3 documentation [rangev3.docs]:
When you want to mutate a container inplace, or forward it through a chain of mutating operations, you can use actions. The following examples should make it clear.
Read data into a vector, sort it, and make it unique.
extern std::vector<int> read_data();
using namespace ranges;
std::vector<int> vi = read_data()  actions::sort  actions::unique;
Do the same to a vector that already contains some data:
Mutate the container inplace:
Same as above, but with functioncall syntax instead of pipe syntax:
Indeed, ranges actions do seem very useful — and provide the ability to pipeline operations that we cannot do today. There is, nor will there ever be, a views::sort
, so the only option today is:
But while it might be nicer to provide a pipeline approach, we feel this whole space simply needs more research. It is an immediate source of frustration for users when they discover that while you can pipe a view
into an action
, you cannot do the reverse.
Given that the actions don’t provide any functionality that we don’t already have, simply adding the ability to compose some operations better, we give them pretty low priority relative to the wealth of new functionality many of the other operations here provide.
To summarize the above descriptions, we want to triage a lot of outstanding ranges algorithms, views, actions, and other utilities into three tiers based on our opinions of their importance. While ideally we could just add everything into C++23, we realize that this is not realistic with the amount of available LWG bandwidth, so our tier 1 here is trying to be as small as possible while still hitting as many major pain points as possible.
The following includes links ot papers that currently exist so far.
ranges::to
([P1206R6])std::format
([P2286R2])views::adjacent
([P2321R2])views::adjacent_transform
([P2321R2])views::as_const
([P2278R1])views::cartesian_product
([P2374R1])views::chunk
([P2442R0])views::chunk_by
([P2443R0])views::enumerate
([P2164R5])views::join_with
([P2441R0])views::slide
([P2442R0])views::stride
([P1899R0])views::zip
([P2321R2])views::zip_transform
([P2321R2])zip
family, all handled by [P2321R2]):
pair<T, U>
should be constassignable whenever T
and U
are both constassignablepair<T&, U&>
should be constructible from pair<T, U>&
tuple<T...>
should be constassignable whenever T...
are constassignabletuple<T&...>
should be constructible from tuple<T...>&
.vector<bool>::reference
should be constassignableviews::cache1
views::chunk_on
views::concat
views::cycle
views::delimit
views::drop_last
views::drop_last_while
views::generate
views::generate_n
views::group_by_key
views::intersperse
views::partial_sum
views::remove
views::remove_if
views::repeat
views::repeat_n
views::replace
views::replace_if
views::scan
views::split_when
views::take_last
views::take_last_while
views::transform_maybe
views::trim
views::unique
std::ranges
that have a parallel overload in std
ranges::reduce
ranges::sum
ranges::product
views::adjacent_filter
views::adjacent_remove_if
views::drop_exactly
views::flat_map
(possibly unnecessary given [P2328R1])views::head
views::linear_distribute
views::sample
views::set_difference
views::set_intersection
views::set_union
views::set_symmetric_difference
views::slice
views::tail
views::take_exactly
ranges::adjacent_transform
ranges::partial_fold
ranges::inclusive_scan
ranges::exclusive_scan
ranges::partial_sum
[haskell.groupby] Donnacha Oisín Kidney. groupBy: Replacement definition of Data.List.GroupBy.
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/groupBy
[hoekstra.cppcon] Conor Hoekstra. 2019. 23 Ranges: slide & stride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lqZJK2vjI
[N3408] J. Hoberock, O. Giroux, V. Grover, J. Marathe, et al. 20120921. Parallelizing The Standard Algorithms Library.
https://wg21.link/n3408
[niebler.iter.0] Eric Niebler. 2015. To Be or Not to Be (an Iterator).
http://ericniebler.com/2015/01/28/tobeornottobeaniterator/
[niebler.iter.1] Eric Niebler. 2015. Iterators++, Part 1.
http://ericniebler.com/2015/02/03/iteratorspluspluspart1/
[niebler.iter.2] Eric Niebler. 2015. Iterators++, Part 2.
http://ericniebler.com/2015/02/13/iteratorspluspluspart2/
[niebler.iter.3] Eric Niebler. 2015. Iterators++, Part 3.
http://ericniebler.com/2015/03/03/iteratorspluspluspart3/
[P0024R2] Jared Hoberock. 20160304. The Parallelism TS Should be Standardized.
https://wg21.link/p0024r2
[P0592R4] Ville Voutilainen. 20191125. To boldly suggest an overall plan for C++23.
https://wg21.link/p0592r4
[P0836R1] Gordon Brown, Christopher Di Bella, Michael Haidl, Toomas Remmelg, Ruyman Reyes, Michel Steuwer, Michael Wong. 20180507. Introduce Parallelism to the Ranges TS.
https://wg21.link/p0836r1
[P0896R4] Eric Niebler, Casey Carter, Christopher Di Bella. 20181109. The One Ranges Proposal.
https://wg21.link/p0896r4
[P1206R6] Corentin Jabot, Eric Niebler, Casey Carter. 20210803. Conversions from ranges to containers.
https://wg21.link/p1206r6
[P1243R4] Dan Raviv. 20200212. Rangify New Algorithms.
https://wg21.link/p1243r4
[P1255R6] Steve Downey. 20200405. A view of 0 or 1 elements: views::maybe.
https://wg21.link/p1255r6
[P1522R1] Eric Niebler. 20190728. Iterator Difference Type and Integer Overflow.
https://wg21.link/p1522r1
[P1645R1] Ben Deane. 20190514. constexpr for numeric algorithms.
https://wg21.link/p1645r1
[P1716R3] Tomasz Kamiński. 20191107. ranges compare algorithm are overconstrained.
https://wg21.link/p1716r3
[P1739R4] Hannes Hauswedell. 20200301. Avoid template bloat for safe_ranges in combination with “subrangey” view adaptors.
https://wg21.link/p1739r4
[P1813R0] Christopher Di Bella. 20190802. A Concept Design for the Numeric Algorithms.
https://wg21.link/p1813r0
[P1894R0] Andrew Tomazos. 20191002. Proposal of std::upto, std::indices and std::enumerate.
https://wg21.link/p1894r0
[P1899R0] Christopher Di Bella. 20191007. stride_view.
https://wg21.link/p1899r0
[P2011R1] Barry Revzin, Colby Pike. 20200416. A pipelinerewrite operator.
https://wg21.link/p2011r1
[P2164R5] Corentin Jabot. 20210615. views::enumerate.
https://wg21.link/p2164r5
[P2210R0] Barry Revzin. 20200814. Superior String Splitting.
https://wg21.link/p2210r0
[P2214R0] Barry Revzin, Conor Hoekstra, Tim Song. 20201015. A Plan for C++23 Ranges.
https://wg21.link/p2214r0
[P2278R1] Barry Revzin. 2021. cbegin
should always return a constant iterator.
https://wg21.link/p2278r1
[P2286R2] Barry Revzin. 20210816. Formatting Ranges.
https://wg21.link/p2286r2
[P2321R2] Tim Song. 20210611. zip.
https://wg21.link/p2321r2
[P2322R2] Barry Revzin. 20210415. ranges::fold.
https://wg21.link/p2322r2
[P2322R4] Barry Revzin. 2021. ranges::fold
.
https://wg21.link/p2322r4
[P2328R1] Tim Song. 20210508. join_view should join all views of ranges.
https://wg21.link/p2328r1
[P2374R1] Sy Brand. 20210511. views::cartesian_product.
https://wg21.link/p2374r1
[P2387R1] Barry Revzin. 20210814. Pipe support for userdefined range adaptors.
https://wg21.link/p2387r1
[P2440R0] Tim Song. 2021. ranges::iota
, ranges::shift_left
, and ranges::shift_right
.
https://wg21.link/p2440r0
[P2441R0] Barry Revzin. 2021. views::join_with
.
https://wg21.link/p2441r0
[P2442R0] Tim Song. 2021. Windowing range adaptors: views::chunk
and views::slide
.
https://wg21.link/p2442r0
[P2443R0] Tim Song. 2021. views::chunk_by
.
https://wg21.link/p2443r0
[rangev3] Eric Niebler. 2014. rangev3.
https://github.com/ericniebler/rangev3/
[rangev3.1141] voivoid. 2019. view::enumerate issues with latest 1.0beta commits?
https://github.com/ericniebler/rangev3/issues/1141
[rangev3.573] Jarod42. 2017. Readable types with prvalue reference types erroneously model IndirectlyMovable.
https://github.com/ericniebler/rangev3/issues/573
[rangev3.docs] Eric Niebler. 2014. rangev3 documentation.
https://ericniebler.github.io/rangev3/
[stepanov] Alexander A. Stepanov. 2014. From Mathematics to Generic Programming.
[stl2.381] Eric Niebler. 2017. Readable types with prvalue reference types erroneously model Writable.
https://github.com/ericniebler/stl2/issues/381
[swift.algorithms] Nate Cook. Announcing Swift Algorithms.
https://swift.org/blog/swiftalgorithms/