[SUGGESTION] [BUG] The syntax of assignments and initializations should be the same for multiple arguments.

[msadeqhe]

Describe it

I don't know I'm reportring a bug or a feature request. This is an example:

point: type = {
    operator=: (out this, x: int, y: int) = {}
}

check: (p: point) = {}

main: () = {
    p0: point = (0, 0);
    p0 = (0, 0); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p0 = : point = (0, 0);

    p1: point;
    p1 = (0, 0);
    p1 = (0, 0); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p1 = : point = (0, 0);

    check((0, 0)); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    check(: point = (0, 0));
}

I've highlighted important lines with BUG! comment.

What is the result?

cppfront generates the following wrong Cpp1 code for main:

auto main() -> int{
    point p0 {0, 0}; 
    p0 = 0, 0;   // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p0 = point{0, 0};

    cpp2::deferred_init<point> p1; 
    p1.construct(0, 0);
    p1.value() = 0, 0;// BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p1.value() = point{0, 0};

    check((0, 0)); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    check(point{0, 0});
}

So p0 and p1 don't work at second assignment. Also the first call to check doesn't work, and the type is dependent on overloaded check functions.

What did I expect to happen?

Let's examine the example. The following lines are similar while I expected them to work:

// ...

p1: point;
/* Many statements are here... */
p1 = (0, 0);
/* Many statements are here too... */
p1 = (0, 0); // BUG!

// ...

The first assignment is for object initialization and it works, but the second assignment doesn't work. It leads to surprises at least for novice programmers like me, whereas initialization and assignment are unified with operator= in Cpp2.

Solutions

Three options are available.

1. Make it a syntax error. Do not support it at all.

As simple as that:

p0: point = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the constructor.
p0 = (0, 0); // ERROR!

p1: point;
p1 = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the constructor.
p1 = (0, 0); // ERROR!

2. Support constructor call on assignment.

In assignments the type is completely known (unlike function calls in which positional argument types depend on declared overloaded functions), and (...) for object construction could be supported without any ambiguous.

I have to mention we have two types of constructors: implicit and explicit (the default). The difference between initializations and assignments is that, initializations (first assignments) always works with both implicit and explicit constructors, but assignments (except the first one) won't work with explicit constructors without any extra syntax.

So the previous example for implicit constructor will be like this:

p0: point = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the implicit constructor.
p0 = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the implicit constructor to assign to the variable.

p1: point;
p1 = (0, 0); // OK. It's the first assignment. It calls the implicit constructor.
p1 = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the implicit constructor to assign to the variable.

The above example should work on assignments for implicit constructors, but unnamed objects are required on assignments for explicit constructors. It's like this for an explicit constructor which has only one argument of type int:

number: type = {
    operator=: (out this, n: int) = {}
}

n0: number = 2;
n0 = 2; // ERROR! It doesn't have implicit constructor.
n0 =: number = 2; // OK. It calls explicit constructor.

Now, that example would be like this for explicit constructors:

p0: point = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit constructor.
p0 =: point = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit constructor to assign to the variable.

p1: point;
p1 = (0, 0); // OK. It's the first assignment. It calls the explicit constructor.
p1 =: point = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit constructor to assign to the variable.

The point about this alternative solution is that it's consistent with unnamed objects, at the same time the syntax of initialization and assignment will be distinct for explicit constructors (but they are the same for implicit constructurs).

This syntax complements arrays and dictionaries in Cpp2 as described in this comment. Similarly this feature can be supported for compound assignment operators to directly call a constructor.
In this way, we can easily work with arrays, dictionaries and other objects:

// (key, value) are the arguments for object constructor of `std::pair<std::string, int>`.
c0: my::dictionary<int> = [("a", 1), ("b", 2)];

// Now the dictionary have a different value.
// This is an implicit constructor.
c0 = [("a", 10), ("b", 20)];

// Directly call the constructor and add objects to the dictionary.
c0 += [("c", 30)];

Similar rule applies to -=, *=, /= and other compound assignment operators.

3. Make all assignments to implicitly call constructors

That is the goal of Cpp2 to unify assignments and initializations (e.g. operator=). It doesn't matter if a constructor is implicit or explicit for assignment operators including compound assignment operators (e.g. +=) and return statements:

p0: point = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit/implicit constructor.
p0 = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit/implicit constructor to assign to the variable.

p1: point;
p1 = (0, 0); // OK. It's the first assignment. It calls the explicit/implicit constructor.
p0 = (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit/implicit constructor to assign to the variable.

run: () -> point = {
    return (0, 0); // OK. It calls the explicit/implicit constructor and returns.
}

But implicit and explicit constructors have different behaviours in other expressions and operators such as passing arguments in function calls and etc. For example:

number: type = {
    operator=: (out this, n: int) = {}
}

point: type = {
    operator=: (out this, x: int, y: int) = {}
}

a: = (: number = 2) + 2; // ERROR! It would work if it had `implicit` constructor.
a: = (: number = 2) + (: number = 2); // OK.

a: = (: point = (0, 0)) + (0, 0); // ERROR! It would work if it had `implicit` constructor.
a: = (: point = (0, 0)) + (: point = (0, 0)); // OK.

call(2); // ERROR! It would work if it had `implicit` constructor.
call(: number = 2); // OK.

call((0, 0)); // ERROR! It would work if it had `implicit` constructor.
call(: point = (0, 0)); // OK.

Conclusion

I think:

• Option 1 doesn't solve anything. Simply banning a feature doesn't make sense.
• Option 2 is good enough.
• Option 3 fits to the goal of Cpp2 very well. IMO I like this one.

Will your feature suggestion eliminate X% of security vulnerabilities of a given kind in current C++ code?

No.

Will your feature suggestion automate or eliminate X% of current C++ guidance literature?

Yes. Initialization (first assignments) and assignments (except first assignments) are unified with operator= in Cpp2. It leads to surprises at least for novice programmers if visually that's not true.

Edits

1. I've replaced option 3.

[JohelEGP]

    p0: point = (0, 0);
    p0 = (0, 0); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p0 = : point = (0, 0);

We went over this at #401 (comment).
"See also #321".

    check((0, 0)); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    check(: point = (0, 0));

AFAIK, you could always use parentheses to initialize a variable, and assign to one (modulo bugs).
ab29f19 added support for return.
I don't remember check((0, 0)); // BUG! ever being supported (or it was always bugged).
So the bug is either that it lowers

• to a comma operator, rather than being rejected, or
• to a parenthesized expression list, rather than braces for initialization.

Solutions

Something that's always been on my mind is how implicit (and its lack thereof)
has no effect at all on how you can call the assignment operator.
Seeing your examples makes me think it's OK that it only affects construction.
Cpp2 has operator= for unified construction and assignment, so the = is explicit.
At the end of 3. you point out where implicitness does have an effect.

1. Make it a syntax error. Do not support it at all.

2. Support constructor call on assignment.

3. Make all assignments to implicitly call constructors

Conclusion

I think:

* _Option 1_ doesn't solve anything. Simply banning a feature doesn't make sense.

* _Option 2_ is good enough.

* _Option 3_ fits to the goal of Cpp2 very well. IMO I like this one.

I don't think an assignment should implicitly call a constructor.
What if there's no available operator=: (out this, data) for construction?
What if the user explicitly wrote an operator=: (inout this, data);? It won't get called.

[JohelEGP]

    check((0, 0)); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    check(: point = (0, 0));

AFAIK, you could always use parentheses to initialize a variable, and assign to one (modulo bugs).
ab29f19 added support for return.
I don't remember check((0, 0)); // BUG! ever being supported (or it was always bugged).
So the bug is either that it lowers

• to a comma operator, rather than being rejected, or
• to a parenthesized expression list, rather than braces for initialization.

Reading #448 (comment) made me realize that the reason these (happen to) work is thanks to the primary-expression '(' expression-list ')'.
https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/wiki/Design-note%3A-Unambiguous-parsing mentions that

• Cpp2 has no comma operator, so that removes the possibility of b,c visually being a comma-expression.

In its context, b,c are template arguments, so it's not a comma expression.
But in this example and the linked one, the are lowered to Cpp1 comma expressions.

[msadeqhe]

Thanks for your informative comment, and sorry for my duplicated bug report.

I don't think an assignment should implicitly call a constructor.

operator= is the only way to write either a constructor or an assignment operator in Cpp2 that its goal is to unify constructors and assignments under the title "Unification of { copy, move, convert } x { construction, assignment }".

So semantically assignment operators are essentially the same as calling constructors. In this way, syntactically (visually) they should be the same too.

What if there's no available operator=: (out this, data) for construction?

It would have only the default constructor. So we can use assignment to set its value with it:

// Initialize it with default constructor
x: something = ();

// Call default constructor to set its value again
x = ();

a: int = 2;

// Set `a` to the default value of `int` which is `0`
a = ();

What if the user explicitly wrote an operator=: (inout this, data);? It won't get called.

This would happen:

// Initialize it with the constructor
x: something = data;

// Call the constructor to set its value again
x = data;

Briefly, anything that we can do in declarations after =, we can do in assignments.

[JohelEGP]

So semantically assignment operators are essentially the same as calling constructors.

They necessarily aren't. That's why we can still overload them.

What if the user explicitly wrote an operator=: (inout this, data);? It won't get called.

This would happen:

// Initialize it with the constructor
x: something = data;

// Call the constructor to set its value again
x = data;

A reason to overload operator=: (out this, data) with operator=: (inout this, data)
would be to use the existing object for performance reasons.
Your suggestion amounts to #312 (comment).
This way, equivalent Cpp1 code would perform better because it'd actually call the assignment operator.

[JohelEGP]

I don't know I'm reportring a bug or a feature request. This is an example:

Consistent with #451, I believe this should be a bug report.

    check((0, 0)); // BUG!

I think this is the only problem not covered by other issues.

    p0: point = (0, 0);
    p0 = (0, 0); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p0 = : point = (0, 0);

    p1: point;
    p1 = (0, 0);
    p1 = (0, 0); // BUG!
    // Use this instead:
    p1 = : point = (0, 0);

I'd hope the latter // BUG! would be fixed along the first one (by fixing #321).
They each lower to p0 = 0, 0; // BUG! and p1.value() = 0, 0;// BUG!, respectively.
But these could be apart in cppfront's code.

[JohelEGP]

A reason to overload operator=: (out this, data) with operator=: (inout this, data)
would be to use the existing object for performance reasons.
Your suggestion amounts to #312 (comment).
This way, equivalent Cpp1 code would perform better because it'd actually call the assignment operator.

An example is std::vector.
With the current semantics, v = ... reuses v's capacity.
With your suggestion, v = ... first constructors a vector, then move assigns to v, losing v's previous capacity.

[msadeqhe]

Yes, you're right. I didn't mean to explain technically about implementation details. If operator= with inout this parameter is defined, it will be used for assignment. If it's not defined, operator= with out this parameter will be used instead of it. As you've explained, vector has overloaded operator=, one with inout this parameter, and another with out this parameter.

[realgdman]

I want to add I haven't found anywhere notes how could look syntax for those major cpp1 things:

1. Structured binding [a, b] = foo()
2. Variadic/paramter pack f(Ts... args) { g(&args...) }

Leaving note here, so to not forget for much later, when design will be harder to change.

[JohelEGP]

Those are not supported yet.

[realgdman]

I don't know if this should be separate issue, but I have found some problems with initialization inside (parameters). I'll put it here, feel free to split if needed

Some excerpts

1. Initialization in parameter before block fails to emit proper {} initializer

(copy  te : T =  () ) {}	//error, T te = ;
(           tf : T = (())) {}	//error, cpp2::in<T> tf = ();;
(inout sc : S = (2) ) {}	//error, S& sc = 2;

2. assignment inside function call doesn't compile

foo(sf2 = S(-2));		//error, foo(tf2.construct(T()));

3. assignment of return parameter doesn't deduce type

retout2: () -> (n := 2) = { return; } //error - return param must have a type

https://cpp2.godbolt.org/z/W5qThxWfG

[JohelEGP]

3. assignment inside function call doesn't compile

foo(sf2 = S(-2));		//error, foo(tf2.construct(T()));

That's #368.

5. assignment of return parameter doesn't deduce type

retout2: () -> (n := 2) = { return; } //error - return param must have a type

I don't think that's supposed to work.
You are supposed to assign the anonymous return type's members inside the function's initializer.