invoke_r

Changes Since R1

• update wording

Changes Since R0

• rename to invoke_r; the proposed facility is no longer overloaded with std::invoke

Introduction

This paper proposes invoke_r, a variant of std::invoke that allows specifying the return type, realizing the semantics of INVOKE<R> rather than INVOKE.

History

When std::invoke was introduced in N4169^[1], invoke<R> was dropped from the proposal with the belief that such a form is unnecessary, stating:

Mentioned version is leftover from TR1 implementation, were the result type was determined using result_of protocol or has to be specified at the call side and, after the introduction of type interference in C++11, it becomes obsolete.

But in 2015, LWG 2420^[2] was applied to the working draft. INVOKE(f, args…, void)'s capability of casting away the return value is confirmed and specified.

In 2016, the author of this paper opened LWG 2690^[3], proposing std::invoke<R>. The author of N4169 commented on that issue, confirmed that:

The lack of invoke<R> was basically a result of the concurrent publication of the never revision of the paper and additional special semantics of INVOKE(f, args…, void).

In 2017, INVOKE(f, args…, void) gained the current spelling INVOKE<R>(f, args…) in P0604R0^[4]. In the same paper, all the new invocation traits get _r variants that allow specifying the return type.

In 2018, std::visit<R>^[5] is added to the working draft. The usefulness of INVOKE<R> keeps getting attention.

Discussion

How useful invoke_r is?

invoke_r<R>(...) does three things that std::invoke(...) does not:

1. In a call forwarder that allows specifying the return type or the full signature, putting void as the return type naturally discards the return value, as implied by std::is_invocable_r and std::is_nothrow_invocable_r.
2. When R is not cv void, you can specify a compatible return type that is different from the callable entity. For example, you can request a function that returns T&& to return a prvalue of type T by calling invoke_r<T>.
3. If the callable entity has overloaded call operators that may return different types, they may agree on a return type that allows you to specify. For example, you can perform an upcast for covariant return types.

Why not to spell it invoke<R>?

LEWG reached consensus to name the facility differently to avoid ambiguity when R is the callable type, for the following reasons:

1. std::invoke_r<R> meant to be a low-level facility, therefore it supposes to be usable in any condition, unlike std::bind<R> and std::visit<R>.
2. Being consistent with an internal name for library specification, i.e., INVOKE<R>, isn’t nessasry.
3. invoke with an explicit return type shouldn’t belong to the std::invoke overload set, since an end-user never meant to get a different form when spelled a particular one.

To not to miss any bikeshedding opportunity, our naming candidates include:

1. invoke_r
2. invoke_argh

The author prefers (1) because users may correctly correlate std::invoke_r, std::is_invocable_r, and std::is_nothrow_invocable_r given the similarity.

Wording

The wording is relative to N4868.

Modify 20.14.2 [functional.syn], header <functional> synopsis, as indicated:

namespace std {
  // 20.14.5 [func.invoke], invoke
  template<class F, class... Args>
    constexpr invoke_result_t<F, Args...>   invoke(F&& f, Args&&... args)
      noexcept(is_nothrow_invocable_v<F, Args...>);
  template <class R, class F, class... Args>
    constexpr R invoke_r(F&& f, Args&&... args)
      noexcept(is_nothrow_invocable_r_v<R, F, Args...>);

Add the following sequence of paragraphs after 20.14.5 [func.invoke]/1 as indicated:

template <class R, class F, class... Args>
  constexpr R invoke_r(F&& f, Args&&... args)
    noexcept(is_nothrow_invocable_r_v<R, F, Args...>);

Constraints: is_invocable_r_v<R, F, Args...> is true.

Returns: INVOKE<R>(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...) (20.14.4 [func.require]).

References