This commit reverts 5aaefa51 (and also partly 7f285f48e7 and b6d75682f9,
which were related to the original commit). As landed, 5aaefa51 had
unintended consequences on some downstream bots and didn't have proper
coverage upstream due to a few subtle things. Implementing this is
something we should do in libc++, however we'll first need to address
a few issues listed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124#3349710.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120683
libc++ has started splicing standard library headers into much more
fine-grained content for maintainability. It's very likely that outdated
and naive tooling (some of which is outside of LLVM's scope) will
suggest users include things such as <__ranges/access.h> instead of
<ranges>, and Hyrum's law suggests that users will eventually begin to
rely on this without the help of tooling. As such, this commit
intends to protect users from themselves, by making it a hard error for
anyone outside of the standard library to include libc++ detail headers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124
I just ran into a compiler error involving __bind_back and some overloads
that were being disabled with _EnableIf. I noticed that the error message
was quite bad and did not mention the reason for the overload being
excluded. Specifically, the error looked like this:
candidate template ignored: substitution failure [with _Args =
<ContiguousView>]: no member named '_EnableIfImpl' in 'std::_MetaBase<false>'
Instead, when using enable_if or enable_if_t, the compiler is clever and
can produce better diagnostics, like so:
candidate template ignored: requirement 'is_invocable_v<
std::__bind_back_op<1, std::integer_sequence<unsigned long, 0>>,
std::ranges::views::__transform::__fn &, std::tuple<PlusOne> &,
ContiguousView>' was not satisfied [with _Args = <ContiguousView>]
Basically, it tries to do a poor man's implementation of concepts, which
is already a lot better than simply complaining about substitution failure.
Hence, this commit uses enable_if_t instead of _EnableIf whenever
possible. That is both more straightforward than using the internal
helper, and also leads to better error messages in those cases.
I understand the motivation for _EnableIf's implementation was to improve
compile-time performance, however I believe striving to improve error
messages is even more important for our QOI, hence this patch. Furthermore,
it is unclear that _EnableIf actually improved compile-time performance
in any noticeable way (see discussion in the review for details).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108216
Louis Dionne