[libc++] `std::bitset` has non-uglified member typedefs `size_type`, `difference_type`, and `const_reference` causing ambiguity in name lookup

[winner245]

Due to the presence of non-uglified member typedef-names in std::bitset, the following program fails to compile in libc++ (while it compiles successfully in libstdc++ and MSVC):

https://godbolt.org/z/4EGY13eah

#include <bitset>

struct MyBase {
  using const_reference = const int&;
  using size_type = unsigned;
  using difference_type = int;
};

struct MyDerived : MyBase, std::bitset<42> {};

int main() {
  MyDerived::const_reference r{};
  MyDerived::size_type s{};
  MyDerived::difference_type d{};
}

Affected Lines:

llvm-project/libcxx/include/bitset

Lines 170 to 174 in e3dafa8

	template <size_t _N_words, size_t _Size>
	class __bitset {
	public:
	typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
	typedef size_t size_type;

llvm-project/libcxx/include/bitset

Lines 433 to 436 in e3dafa8

	class __bitset<1, _Size> {
	public:
	typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
	typedef size_t size_type;

llvm-project/libcxx/include/bitset

Lines 550 to 553 in e3dafa8

	class __bitset<0, 0> {
	public:
	typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
	typedef size_t size_type;

llvm-project/libcxx/include/bitset

Line 622 in e3dafa8

typedef typename __base::const_reference const_reference;

Proposed Solution:

In my opinion, if the standard does not specify a member typedef, the library should try to avoid or minimize the introduction of extra typedefs, especially public ones, to prevent potential clashes with user-defined classes, as demonstrated above. From the user's perspective, they have the freedom to utilize any member typedefs not specified by the C++ standards in their own code.

If extra typedefs are deemed necessary, I recommend using a naming convention like __ugly_name for those not specified in the standards, as we have previously implemented.

[philnik777]

Which part of the standard are we not conforming to here?

[winner245]

@philnik777 According to [template.bitset.general], std::bitset is supposed to have only one public member typedef, reference, which indicates that the public typedef const_reference currently available in libc++'s bitset implementation is non-conforming. The other two typdefs, size_type and difference_type (despite being private), could cause failure in name lookup, as reported earlier due to similar private member typedefs such as base (#80706, #112843) and iterator/const_iterator (#111127).

[philnik777]

@philnik777 According to [template.bitset.general], std::bitset is supposed to have only one public member typedef, reference, which indicates that the public typedef const_reference currently available in libc++'s bitset implementation is non-conforming.

No, that describes what public members std::bitset should have. It doesn't say that these should be the only members. I don't see any justification for why they think it's non-conforming in the linked issues either. Maybe @frederick-vs-ja can provide something that says this is non-conforming.

[winner245]

In my opinion, if the standard does not specify a member typedef, the library should try to avoid or minimize the introduction of extra typedefs, especially public ones, to prevent clashes with user-defined classes. From the user's perspective, they have the freedom to utilize any member typedefs not specified by the C++ standards in their own code, which raises my concern. If extra typedefs are deemed necessary, I recommend using a naming convention like __ugly_name for those not specified in the standards, as we have previously implemented.

[philnik777]

That's a valid concern, but very different from "non-conforming".

[frederick-vs-ja]

[objects.within.classes]/3 is arguably related - "equivalent observable behavior" can mean that no additional conflict on (non-reserved) member names is permitted.

[philnik777]

I don't see how. This is about object representation and exposition-only members. This has nothing to do with names in general.

[winner245]

That's a valid concern, but very different from "non-conforming".

I tend to think this is not standard-conforming because it causes ambiguity in name lookup. If it were standard conforming, it shouldn't clash with user code, unless the standard itself is defective. This is my personal thought, and you may disagree.

While I couldn't find a strong argument regarding whether defining additional non-standard member typedefs (I mean member typedefs that are not specified by the standard, in case you disagree with my expression) is standard-conforming or not, I believe we all agree that defining these additional member typedefs could cause potential clashes with name lookup in user-defined classes. Therefore, the issue is valid. However, I will rephrase the issue to focus only on the name lookup ambiguity caused by these non-uglified typedefs.

[frederick-vs-ja]

I don't see how. This is about object representation and exposition-only members. This has nothing to do with names in general.

How about [intro.abstract]/5? I don't think this is relaxed for private class members.