Why is std::iterator deprecated?

by

From the proposal that suggested its deprecation:

As an aid to writing iterator classes, the original standard library supplied the iterator class template to automate the declaration of the five typedefs expected of every iterator by iterator_traits. This was then used in the library itself, for instance in the specification of std::ostream_iterator:

template <class T, class charT = char, class traits = char_traits<charT> >
class ostream_iterator:
  public iterator<output_iterator_tag, void, void, void, void>;

The long sequence of void arguments is much less clear to the reader than simply providing the expected typedefs in the class definition itself, which is the approach taken by the current working draft, following the pattern set in C++14 where we deprecated the derivation throughout the library of functors from unary_function and binary_function.

In addition to the reduced clarity, the iterator template also lays a trap for the unwary, as in typical usage it will be a dependent base class, which means it will not be looking into during name lookup from within the class or its member functions. This leads to surprised users trying to understand why the following simple usage does not work:

#include <iterator>

template <typename T>
struct MyIterator : std::iterator<std::random_access_iterator_tag, T> {
   value_type data;  // Error: value_type is not found by name lookup 

   // ... implementations details elided ...
};

The reason of clarity alone was sufficient to persuade the LWG to update the standard library specification to no longer mandate the standard iterator adapators as deriving from std::iterator, so there is no further use of this template within the standard itself. Therefore, it looks like a strong candidate for deprecation.

You can also see STL’s reasoning in LWG 2438. (h/t T.C.)

As for some other way of doing it, not really. You could basically implement your own version of std::iterator (which isn’t too hard) or manually write out all of those typedefs (which isn’t too hard either, and I actually prefer it for clarity).

More Related Contents:

  1. How does guaranteed copy elision work?
  2. What are the evaluation order guarantees introduced by C++17?
  3. How do inline variables work?
  4. How to enable C++17 compiling in Visual Studio?
  5. What are the new features in C++17?
  6. What is the purpose of std::launder?
  7. How to assert that a constexpr if else clause never happen?
  8. Understanding std::hardware_destructive_interference_size and std::hardware_constructive_interference_size
  9. What made i = i++ + 1; legal in C++17?
  10. Does returning a local variable return a copy and destroy the original(nrvo)?
  11. constexpr static member before/after C++17
  12. Try to understand compiler error message: default member initializer required before the end of its enclosing class
  13. structured bindings: when something looks like a reference and behaves similarly to a reference, but it’s not a reference
  14. Deducing first template argument with other template parameters defaulted
  15. Why is there no support for concatenating std::string and std::string_view?
  16. Self-initialization of a static constexpr variable, is it well-formed?
  17. Static member access in constant expressions
  18. structured binding with [[maybe_unused]]
  19. Why does aggregate initialization not work anymore since C++20 if a constructor is explicitly defaulted or deleted?
  20. Why doesn’t an if constexpr make this core constant expression error disappear?
  21. Restrict variadic template arguments
  22. Deduction guides and variadic class templates with variadic template constructors – mismatched argument pack lengths
  23. Is it allowed for a compiler to optimize away a local volatile variable?
  24. Do I need to put constexpr after else-if?
  25. How to use new std::byte type in places where old-style unsigned char is needed?
  26. Contiguous iterator detection
  27. Constexpr if alternative
  28. Will I be able to declare a constexpr lambda inside a template parameter?
  29. Avoiding extra move in make_unique/make_shared/emplace/etc for structures that use aggregate initialization
  30. Is there a safe navigation operator for C++?

Leave a Comment