Generic lambda vs generic function give different behaviour












8















Take following code as an example



#include <algorithm>

namespace baz {
template<class T>
void sort(T&&){}
}

namespace boot {
const auto sort = (auto &&){};
}

void foo (){
using namespace std;
using namespace baz;
sort(1);
}

void bar(){
using namespace std;
using namespace boot;
sort(1);
}


I expected that since foo compiled, then bar shall compile as well. To my surprise, the foo compiles correctly and bar has problem with ambiguous call to sort function. Am I doing something illegal here or this is proper way compiler should behave? If so, why is it so different. I though generic lambda can be treated as syntactic sugar for generic function.



live example










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    Lambdas do not participate in ADL

    – Guillaume Racicot
    2 hours ago






  • 5





    This isn't ADL. An int argument doesn't come from any namespace.

    – chris
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Should this really be ambiguous, though? std::sort() doesn't take 1 parameter as input, it takes at least 2, so why is the compiler even considering it as a candidate for a call that passes only 1 parameter value?

    – Remy Lebeau
    1 hour ago













  • There must be something about the extra layer of indirection that the lambda introduces. With the first example, the call is made to ::baz::sort, but in the second example, it would have to find ::boot::mystery_lambda_type::operator(). That extra step might be what causes std::sort to be considered first. I don't have the standard in front of me so can't be sure about this.

    – alter igel
    1 hour ago
















8















Take following code as an example



#include <algorithm>

namespace baz {
template<class T>
void sort(T&&){}
}

namespace boot {
const auto sort = (auto &&){};
}

void foo (){
using namespace std;
using namespace baz;
sort(1);
}

void bar(){
using namespace std;
using namespace boot;
sort(1);
}


I expected that since foo compiled, then bar shall compile as well. To my surprise, the foo compiles correctly and bar has problem with ambiguous call to sort function. Am I doing something illegal here or this is proper way compiler should behave? If so, why is it so different. I though generic lambda can be treated as syntactic sugar for generic function.



live example










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    Lambdas do not participate in ADL

    – Guillaume Racicot
    2 hours ago






  • 5





    This isn't ADL. An int argument doesn't come from any namespace.

    – chris
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Should this really be ambiguous, though? std::sort() doesn't take 1 parameter as input, it takes at least 2, so why is the compiler even considering it as a candidate for a call that passes only 1 parameter value?

    – Remy Lebeau
    1 hour ago













  • There must be something about the extra layer of indirection that the lambda introduces. With the first example, the call is made to ::baz::sort, but in the second example, it would have to find ::boot::mystery_lambda_type::operator(). That extra step might be what causes std::sort to be considered first. I don't have the standard in front of me so can't be sure about this.

    – alter igel
    1 hour ago














8












8








8


1






Take following code as an example



#include <algorithm>

namespace baz {
template<class T>
void sort(T&&){}
}

namespace boot {
const auto sort = (auto &&){};
}

void foo (){
using namespace std;
using namespace baz;
sort(1);
}

void bar(){
using namespace std;
using namespace boot;
sort(1);
}


I expected that since foo compiled, then bar shall compile as well. To my surprise, the foo compiles correctly and bar has problem with ambiguous call to sort function. Am I doing something illegal here or this is proper way compiler should behave? If so, why is it so different. I though generic lambda can be treated as syntactic sugar for generic function.



live example










share|improve this question
















Take following code as an example



#include <algorithm>

namespace baz {
template<class T>
void sort(T&&){}
}

namespace boot {
const auto sort = (auto &&){};
}

void foo (){
using namespace std;
using namespace baz;
sort(1);
}

void bar(){
using namespace std;
using namespace boot;
sort(1);
}


I expected that since foo compiled, then bar shall compile as well. To my surprise, the foo compiles correctly and bar has problem with ambiguous call to sort function. Am I doing something illegal here or this is proper way compiler should behave? If so, why is it so different. I though generic lambda can be treated as syntactic sugar for generic function.



live example







c++ lambda c++14






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







bartop

















asked 2 hours ago









bartopbartop

3,2281030




3,2281030








  • 4





    Lambdas do not participate in ADL

    – Guillaume Racicot
    2 hours ago






  • 5





    This isn't ADL. An int argument doesn't come from any namespace.

    – chris
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Should this really be ambiguous, though? std::sort() doesn't take 1 parameter as input, it takes at least 2, so why is the compiler even considering it as a candidate for a call that passes only 1 parameter value?

    – Remy Lebeau
    1 hour ago













  • There must be something about the extra layer of indirection that the lambda introduces. With the first example, the call is made to ::baz::sort, but in the second example, it would have to find ::boot::mystery_lambda_type::operator(). That extra step might be what causes std::sort to be considered first. I don't have the standard in front of me so can't be sure about this.

    – alter igel
    1 hour ago














  • 4





    Lambdas do not participate in ADL

    – Guillaume Racicot
    2 hours ago






  • 5





    This isn't ADL. An int argument doesn't come from any namespace.

    – chris
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Should this really be ambiguous, though? std::sort() doesn't take 1 parameter as input, it takes at least 2, so why is the compiler even considering it as a candidate for a call that passes only 1 parameter value?

    – Remy Lebeau
    1 hour ago













  • There must be something about the extra layer of indirection that the lambda introduces. With the first example, the call is made to ::baz::sort, but in the second example, it would have to find ::boot::mystery_lambda_type::operator(). That extra step might be what causes std::sort to be considered first. I don't have the standard in front of me so can't be sure about this.

    – alter igel
    1 hour ago








4




4





Lambdas do not participate in ADL

– Guillaume Racicot
2 hours ago





Lambdas do not participate in ADL

– Guillaume Racicot
2 hours ago




5




5





This isn't ADL. An int argument doesn't come from any namespace.

– chris
2 hours ago





This isn't ADL. An int argument doesn't come from any namespace.

– chris
2 hours ago




2




2





Should this really be ambiguous, though? std::sort() doesn't take 1 parameter as input, it takes at least 2, so why is the compiler even considering it as a candidate for a call that passes only 1 parameter value?

– Remy Lebeau
1 hour ago







Should this really be ambiguous, though? std::sort() doesn't take 1 parameter as input, it takes at least 2, so why is the compiler even considering it as a candidate for a call that passes only 1 parameter value?

– Remy Lebeau
1 hour ago















There must be something about the extra layer of indirection that the lambda introduces. With the first example, the call is made to ::baz::sort, but in the second example, it would have to find ::boot::mystery_lambda_type::operator(). That extra step might be what causes std::sort to be considered first. I don't have the standard in front of me so can't be sure about this.

– alter igel
1 hour ago





There must be something about the extra layer of indirection that the lambda introduces. With the first example, the call is made to ::baz::sort, but in the second example, it would have to find ::boot::mystery_lambda_type::operator(). That extra step might be what causes std::sort to be considered first. I don't have the standard in front of me so can't be sure about this.

– alter igel
1 hour ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














The problem here is not that the call to sort is ambiguous, but that the name sort is ambiguous. Name lookup happens before overload resolution.



I believe the relevant section is [basic.lookup]/1, specifically




[…] The declarations found by name lookup shall either all denote the same entity or shall all denote functions or function templates; in the latter case, the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions ([over.load]). […]




In your case, the name sort denotes both, the object boot::sort as well as the set of overloaded functions std::sort. Therefore, name lookup fails.



Your code is not different from if you had written, for example



namespace baz {
int a;
}

namespace boot {
int a;
}

void foo() {
using namespace baz;
using namespace boot;
a = 42; // error: reference to 'a' is ambiguous
}


Try it out here; compare this to a case that actually has an ambiguous function call; note how the error message is the same as in your case, specifically referring to the name itself being ambiguous rather than the function call.






share|improve this answer


























  • I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

    – Mike
    2 mins ago











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55367269%2fgeneric-lambda-vs-generic-function-give-different-behaviour%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














The problem here is not that the call to sort is ambiguous, but that the name sort is ambiguous. Name lookup happens before overload resolution.



I believe the relevant section is [basic.lookup]/1, specifically




[…] The declarations found by name lookup shall either all denote the same entity or shall all denote functions or function templates; in the latter case, the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions ([over.load]). […]




In your case, the name sort denotes both, the object boot::sort as well as the set of overloaded functions std::sort. Therefore, name lookup fails.



Your code is not different from if you had written, for example



namespace baz {
int a;
}

namespace boot {
int a;
}

void foo() {
using namespace baz;
using namespace boot;
a = 42; // error: reference to 'a' is ambiguous
}


Try it out here; compare this to a case that actually has an ambiguous function call; note how the error message is the same as in your case, specifically referring to the name itself being ambiguous rather than the function call.






share|improve this answer


























  • I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

    – Mike
    2 mins ago
















2














The problem here is not that the call to sort is ambiguous, but that the name sort is ambiguous. Name lookup happens before overload resolution.



I believe the relevant section is [basic.lookup]/1, specifically




[…] The declarations found by name lookup shall either all denote the same entity or shall all denote functions or function templates; in the latter case, the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions ([over.load]). […]




In your case, the name sort denotes both, the object boot::sort as well as the set of overloaded functions std::sort. Therefore, name lookup fails.



Your code is not different from if you had written, for example



namespace baz {
int a;
}

namespace boot {
int a;
}

void foo() {
using namespace baz;
using namespace boot;
a = 42; // error: reference to 'a' is ambiguous
}


Try it out here; compare this to a case that actually has an ambiguous function call; note how the error message is the same as in your case, specifically referring to the name itself being ambiguous rather than the function call.






share|improve this answer


























  • I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

    – Mike
    2 mins ago














2












2








2







The problem here is not that the call to sort is ambiguous, but that the name sort is ambiguous. Name lookup happens before overload resolution.



I believe the relevant section is [basic.lookup]/1, specifically




[…] The declarations found by name lookup shall either all denote the same entity or shall all denote functions or function templates; in the latter case, the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions ([over.load]). […]




In your case, the name sort denotes both, the object boot::sort as well as the set of overloaded functions std::sort. Therefore, name lookup fails.



Your code is not different from if you had written, for example



namespace baz {
int a;
}

namespace boot {
int a;
}

void foo() {
using namespace baz;
using namespace boot;
a = 42; // error: reference to 'a' is ambiguous
}


Try it out here; compare this to a case that actually has an ambiguous function call; note how the error message is the same as in your case, specifically referring to the name itself being ambiguous rather than the function call.






share|improve this answer















The problem here is not that the call to sort is ambiguous, but that the name sort is ambiguous. Name lookup happens before overload resolution.



I believe the relevant section is [basic.lookup]/1, specifically




[…] The declarations found by name lookup shall either all denote the same entity or shall all denote functions or function templates; in the latter case, the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions ([over.load]). […]




In your case, the name sort denotes both, the object boot::sort as well as the set of overloaded functions std::sort. Therefore, name lookup fails.



Your code is not different from if you had written, for example



namespace baz {
int a;
}

namespace boot {
int a;
}

void foo() {
using namespace baz;
using namespace boot;
a = 42; // error: reference to 'a' is ambiguous
}


Try it out here; compare this to a case that actually has an ambiguous function call; note how the error message is the same as in your case, specifically referring to the name itself being ambiguous rather than the function call.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 min ago

























answered 16 mins ago









Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel

5,04811020




5,04811020













  • I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

    – Mike
    2 mins ago



















  • I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

    – Mike
    2 mins ago

















I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

– Mike
2 mins ago





I think this is actually the right answer. And I would like to add that if both the template function sort and the lambda sort were declared in the same namespace, it would be an error. You cannot have a function and non-function with the same name in the same namespace. So there could never be an overload set that has both true functions and function-like objects.

– Mike
2 mins ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55367269%2fgeneric-lambda-vs-generic-function-give-different-behaviour%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Cosme II de Mèdici

Hivernacle

Eisenach