This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Open status.

### 1213. Meaning of valid and singular iterator underspecified

Section: 25.3 [iterator.requirements] Status: Open Submitter: Daniel Krügler Opened: 2009-09-19 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: 4

View all other issues in [iterator.requirements].

View all issues with Open status.

Discussion:

The terms valid iterator and singular aren't properly defined. The fuzziness of those terms became even worse after the resolution of 208 (including further updates by 278). In 25.3 [iterator.requirements] as of N2723 the standard says now:

> 5 - These values are called past-the-end values. Values of an iterator `i` for which the expression `*i` is defined are called dereferenceable. The library never assumes that past-the-end values are dereferenceable. Iterators can also have singular values that are not associated with any container. [...] Results of most expressions are undefined for singular values; the only exceptions are destroying an iterator that holds a singular value and the assignment of a non-singular value to an iterator that holds a singular value. [...] Dereferenceable values are always non-singular.

> 10 - An invalid iterator is an iterator that may be singular.

First, issue 208 intentionally removed the earlier constraint that past-the-end values are always non-singular. The reason for this was to support null pointers as past-the-end iterators of e.g. empty sequences. But there seem to exist different views on what a singular (iterator) value is. E.g. according to the SGI definition a null pointer is not a singular value:

> Dereferenceable iterators are always nonsingular, but the converse is not true. For example, a null pointer is nonsingular (there are well defined operations involving null pointers) even thought it is not dereferenceable.

and proceeds:

> An iterator is valid if it is dereferenceable or past-the-end.

Even if the standard prefers a different meaning of singular here, the change was incomplete, because by restricting feasible expressions of singular iterators to destruction and assignment isn't sufficient for a past-the-end iterator: Of-course it must still be equality-comparable and in general be a readable value.

Second, the standard doesn't clearly say whether a past-the-end value is a valid iterator or not. E.g. 27.11 [specialized.algorithms]/1 says:

> In all of the following algorithms, the formal template parameter `ForwardIterator` is required to satisfy the requirements of a forward iterator (24.1.3) [..], and is required to have the property that no exceptions are thrown from [..], or dereference of valid iterators.

The standard should make better clear what "singular pointer" and "valid iterator" means. The fact that the meaning of a valid value has a core language meaning doesn't imply that for an iterator concept the term "valid iterator" has the same meaning.

Let me add a final example: In 99 [allocator.concepts.members] of N2914 we find:

>     pointer X::allocate(size_type n);

> > 11 Returns: a pointer to the allocated memory. [Note: if `n == 0`, the return value is unspecified. —end note]

> [..]

>     void X::deallocate(pointer p, size_type n);

> > Preconditions: `p` shall be a non-singular pointer value obtained from a call to `allocate()` on this allocator or one that compares equal to it.

If singular pointer value would include null pointers this make the preconditions unclear if the pointer value is a result of `allocate(0)`: Since the return value is unspecified, it could be a null pointer. Does that mean that programmers need to check the pointer value for a null value before calling deallocate?

[ 2010-11-09 Daniel comments: ]

A later paper is in preparation.

[ 2010 Batavia: ]

Doesn't need to be resolved for Ox

[2014-02-20 Re-open Deferred issues as Priority 4]

Consider to await the paper.

Proposed resolution: