Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!What's the best way to trim std::string?How to convert std::string to lower case?How to convert a std::string to const char* or char*?std::wstring VS std::stringDoes std::string find require that pos be less than the string size?Are the days of passing const std::string & as a parameter over?Is a std::string implementation conformant where 's.c_str() + s.size()' is not necessarily the same as '&s[s.size()]'?Why is f(i = -1, i = -1) undefined behavior?In C++11 and beyond does std::string::operator[] do bounds checking?What made i = i++ + 1; legal in C++17?

Philosophical question on logisitic regression: why isn't the optimal threshold value trained?

Intern got a job offer for same salary than a long term team member

How much cash can I safely carry into the USA and avoid civil forfeiture?

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest

Which big number is bigger?

What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?

Why do games have consumables?

Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?

As an international instructor, should I openly talk about my accent?

Is it possible to cast 2x Final Payment while sacrificing just one creature?

Jaya, Venerated Firemage + Chandra's Pyrohelix = 4 damage among two targets?

Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?

Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?

Do I need to watch Ant-Man and the Wasp and Captain Marvel before watching Avengers: Endgame?

Older movie/show about humans on derelict alien warship which refuels by passing through a star

A strange hotel

What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?

Why doesn't the standard consider a template constructor as a copy constructor?

My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?

Where was the County of Thurn und Taxis located?

Did the Roman Empire have penal colonies?

Will I lose my paid in full property

Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?

How to keep bees out of canned beverages?



Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!What's the best way to trim std::string?How to convert std::string to lower case?How to convert a std::string to const char* or char*?std::wstring VS std::stringDoes std::string find require that pos be less than the string size?Are the days of passing const std::string & as a parameter over?Is a std::string implementation conformant where 's.c_str() + s.size()' is not necessarily the same as '&s[s.size()]'?Why is f(i = -1, i = -1) undefined behavior?In C++11 and beyond does std::string::operator[] do bounds checking?What made i = i++ + 1; legal in C++17?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








32















In case of std::string, if we access an element where (element position) == (size of string) the standard says that it returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT().



const_reference operator[](size_type pos) const;
reference operator[](size_type pos);



Expects: pos <= size().



Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
undefined behavior.




http://eel.is/c++draft/strings#string.access-1



Unfortunately I couldn't reason about this, it would have been better if it has been Undefined Behavior.



Can somebody explain the rationale behind this?










share|improve this question



















  • 5





    @user463035818 no that's not true. Subscript operator [] does not perform a check. string::at() does and for that reason it throws

    – KostasRim
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    Doesn't violating "Expects: pos <= size()" lead to UB straight away? The "Otherwise" refers only to the pos == size case, no?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    exactly I think the crux is "Expects: pos <= size()." if you dont follow the precondition you are in UB land anyhow, so it is just about accesing the "end" of the string

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 7





    @AImx1 Where does the standard say that violating an "Expects" clause is anything other than UB?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 2





    For a C-style string of length X, using the index X will give you the null-terminator. std::string simply tries to emulate that. Going beyond will always lead to UB.

    – Some programmer dude
    Apr 9 at 8:32


















32















In case of std::string, if we access an element where (element position) == (size of string) the standard says that it returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT().



const_reference operator[](size_type pos) const;
reference operator[](size_type pos);



Expects: pos <= size().



Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
undefined behavior.




http://eel.is/c++draft/strings#string.access-1



Unfortunately I couldn't reason about this, it would have been better if it has been Undefined Behavior.



Can somebody explain the rationale behind this?










share|improve this question



















  • 5





    @user463035818 no that's not true. Subscript operator [] does not perform a check. string::at() does and for that reason it throws

    – KostasRim
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    Doesn't violating "Expects: pos <= size()" lead to UB straight away? The "Otherwise" refers only to the pos == size case, no?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    exactly I think the crux is "Expects: pos <= size()." if you dont follow the precondition you are in UB land anyhow, so it is just about accesing the "end" of the string

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 7





    @AImx1 Where does the standard say that violating an "Expects" clause is anything other than UB?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 2





    For a C-style string of length X, using the index X will give you the null-terminator. std::string simply tries to emulate that. Going beyond will always lead to UB.

    – Some programmer dude
    Apr 9 at 8:32














32












32








32


2






In case of std::string, if we access an element where (element position) == (size of string) the standard says that it returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT().



const_reference operator[](size_type pos) const;
reference operator[](size_type pos);



Expects: pos <= size().



Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
undefined behavior.




http://eel.is/c++draft/strings#string.access-1



Unfortunately I couldn't reason about this, it would have been better if it has been Undefined Behavior.



Can somebody explain the rationale behind this?










share|improve this question
















In case of std::string, if we access an element where (element position) == (size of string) the standard says that it returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT().



const_reference operator[](size_type pos) const;
reference operator[](size_type pos);



Expects: pos <= size().



Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
undefined behavior.




http://eel.is/c++draft/strings#string.access-1



Unfortunately I couldn't reason about this, it would have been better if it has been Undefined Behavior.



Can somebody explain the rationale behind this?







c++ string c++11 language-lawyer






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 9 at 23:17









Mooing Duck

47.6k1173132




47.6k1173132










asked Apr 9 at 8:18









AImx1AImx1

597320




597320







  • 5





    @user463035818 no that's not true. Subscript operator [] does not perform a check. string::at() does and for that reason it throws

    – KostasRim
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    Doesn't violating "Expects: pos <= size()" lead to UB straight away? The "Otherwise" refers only to the pos == size case, no?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    exactly I think the crux is "Expects: pos <= size()." if you dont follow the precondition you are in UB land anyhow, so it is just about accesing the "end" of the string

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 7





    @AImx1 Where does the standard say that violating an "Expects" clause is anything other than UB?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 2





    For a C-style string of length X, using the index X will give you the null-terminator. std::string simply tries to emulate that. Going beyond will always lead to UB.

    – Some programmer dude
    Apr 9 at 8:32













  • 5





    @user463035818 no that's not true. Subscript operator [] does not perform a check. string::at() does and for that reason it throws

    – KostasRim
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    Doesn't violating "Expects: pos <= size()" lead to UB straight away? The "Otherwise" refers only to the pos == size case, no?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:30







  • 7





    exactly I think the crux is "Expects: pos <= size()." if you dont follow the precondition you are in UB land anyhow, so it is just about accesing the "end" of the string

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 7





    @AImx1 Where does the standard say that violating an "Expects" clause is anything other than UB?

    – Max Langhof
    Apr 9 at 8:31






  • 2





    For a C-style string of length X, using the index X will give you the null-terminator. std::string simply tries to emulate that. Going beyond will always lead to UB.

    – Some programmer dude
    Apr 9 at 8:32








5




5





@user463035818 no that's not true. Subscript operator [] does not perform a check. string::at() does and for that reason it throws

– KostasRim
Apr 9 at 8:30






@user463035818 no that's not true. Subscript operator [] does not perform a check. string::at() does and for that reason it throws

– KostasRim
Apr 9 at 8:30





7




7





Doesn't violating "Expects: pos <= size()" lead to UB straight away? The "Otherwise" refers only to the pos == size case, no?

– Max Langhof
Apr 9 at 8:30






Doesn't violating "Expects: pos <= size()" lead to UB straight away? The "Otherwise" refers only to the pos == size case, no?

– Max Langhof
Apr 9 at 8:30





7




7





exactly I think the crux is "Expects: pos <= size()." if you dont follow the precondition you are in UB land anyhow, so it is just about accesing the "end" of the string

– user463035818
Apr 9 at 8:31





exactly I think the crux is "Expects: pos <= size()." if you dont follow the precondition you are in UB land anyhow, so it is just about accesing the "end" of the string

– user463035818
Apr 9 at 8:31




7




7





@AImx1 Where does the standard say that violating an "Expects" clause is anything other than UB?

– Max Langhof
Apr 9 at 8:31





@AImx1 Where does the standard say that violating an "Expects" clause is anything other than UB?

– Max Langhof
Apr 9 at 8:31




2




2





For a C-style string of length X, using the index X will give you the null-terminator. std::string simply tries to emulate that. Going beyond will always lead to UB.

– Some programmer dude
Apr 9 at 8:32






For a C-style string of length X, using the index X will give you the null-terminator. std::string simply tries to emulate that. Going beyond will always lead to UB.

– Some programmer dude
Apr 9 at 8:32













4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















38














You have to consider the full specs.



First of all:




Expects: pos <= size().




If you dont follow the precondition you have undefined behaviour anyhow. Now...




Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
undefined behavior.




The only (valid) case that "otherwise" refers to is when pos == size(). And that is probably to emulate c string behaviour that have a some_string[size] element that can be accessed. Note that charT() is typically just ''.



PS: One might think that to implement the specification, operator[] would have to check if pos == size. However, if the underlying character array has a charT() at the end of the string, then you get the described behaviour basically for free. Hence, what seems a little different from "usual" access into an array is actually just that.






share|improve this answer

























  • Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

    – xtofl
    Apr 10 at 5:27


















22














Statement 1 is the precondition for statement 2:




  1. Expects: pos <= size().



  2. Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size().



    Otherwise (so here the only viable possibility is pos == size()), returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT() (i.e. ''), where modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to undefined behavior.





str[str.size()] basically points to the null-terminator character. You can read and write it, but you may only write a '' into it.






share|improve this answer
































    15














    The operator expects pos to be less than or equal to size(), so if it is not less, then it is expected to be equal.






    share|improve this answer
































      2














      Additionally to the previous answers please take a look at the libcxx (the llvm implementation) defines std::string::operator[] like:



      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
      inline
      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) const _NOEXCEPT

      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
      return *(data() + __pos);


      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
      inline
      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::reference
      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) _NOEXCEPT

      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
      return *(__get_pointer() + __pos);



      Take a look at the .at() that properly throws instead.



      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::at(size_type __n) const

      if (__n >= size())
      this->__throw_out_of_range();
      return (*this)[__n];



      As you can, in the first case, there is a runtime assert(thanks t.niese for pointing out) which is triggered only in debug mode whereas the second will always throw, regardless of the build options of the library.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

        – t.niese
        Apr 9 at 8:52












      • std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

        – AImx1
        Apr 9 at 8:57







      • 2





        @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

        – KostasRim
        Apr 9 at 9:00






      • 3





        @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

        – t.niese
        Apr 9 at 9:02












      • Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

        – Arthur Tacca
        Apr 9 at 14:45












      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      );
      );
      , "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55588104%2faccess-elements-in-stdstring-where-positon-of-string-is-greater-than-its-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      38














      You have to consider the full specs.



      First of all:




      Expects: pos <= size().




      If you dont follow the precondition you have undefined behaviour anyhow. Now...




      Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
      reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
      modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
      undefined behavior.




      The only (valid) case that "otherwise" refers to is when pos == size(). And that is probably to emulate c string behaviour that have a some_string[size] element that can be accessed. Note that charT() is typically just ''.



      PS: One might think that to implement the specification, operator[] would have to check if pos == size. However, if the underlying character array has a charT() at the end of the string, then you get the described behaviour basically for free. Hence, what seems a little different from "usual" access into an array is actually just that.






      share|improve this answer

























      • Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

        – xtofl
        Apr 10 at 5:27















      38














      You have to consider the full specs.



      First of all:




      Expects: pos <= size().




      If you dont follow the precondition you have undefined behaviour anyhow. Now...




      Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
      reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
      modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
      undefined behavior.




      The only (valid) case that "otherwise" refers to is when pos == size(). And that is probably to emulate c string behaviour that have a some_string[size] element that can be accessed. Note that charT() is typically just ''.



      PS: One might think that to implement the specification, operator[] would have to check if pos == size. However, if the underlying character array has a charT() at the end of the string, then you get the described behaviour basically for free. Hence, what seems a little different from "usual" access into an array is actually just that.






      share|improve this answer

























      • Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

        – xtofl
        Apr 10 at 5:27













      38












      38








      38







      You have to consider the full specs.



      First of all:




      Expects: pos <= size().




      If you dont follow the precondition you have undefined behaviour anyhow. Now...




      Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
      reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
      modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
      undefined behavior.




      The only (valid) case that "otherwise" refers to is when pos == size(). And that is probably to emulate c string behaviour that have a some_string[size] element that can be accessed. Note that charT() is typically just ''.



      PS: One might think that to implement the specification, operator[] would have to check if pos == size. However, if the underlying character array has a charT() at the end of the string, then you get the described behaviour basically for free. Hence, what seems a little different from "usual" access into an array is actually just that.






      share|improve this answer















      You have to consider the full specs.



      First of all:




      Expects: pos <= size().




      If you dont follow the precondition you have undefined behaviour anyhow. Now...




      Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size(). Otherwise, returns a
      reference to an object of type charT with value charT(), where
      modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to
      undefined behavior.




      The only (valid) case that "otherwise" refers to is when pos == size(). And that is probably to emulate c string behaviour that have a some_string[size] element that can be accessed. Note that charT() is typically just ''.



      PS: One might think that to implement the specification, operator[] would have to check if pos == size. However, if the underlying character array has a charT() at the end of the string, then you get the described behaviour basically for free. Hence, what seems a little different from "usual" access into an array is actually just that.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Apr 9 at 8:49

























      answered Apr 9 at 8:35









      user463035818user463035818

      19.5k42971




      19.5k42971












      • Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

        – xtofl
        Apr 10 at 5:27

















      • Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

        – xtofl
        Apr 10 at 5:27
















      Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

      – xtofl
      Apr 10 at 5:27





      Great explanation. Also a great example how explaining unsupported cases (>size) leads to harder to follow specs. 'otherwise' should have read 'if pos==size'

      – xtofl
      Apr 10 at 5:27













      22














      Statement 1 is the precondition for statement 2:




      1. Expects: pos <= size().



      2. Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size().



        Otherwise (so here the only viable possibility is pos == size()), returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT() (i.e. ''), where modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to undefined behavior.





      str[str.size()] basically points to the null-terminator character. You can read and write it, but you may only write a '' into it.






      share|improve this answer





























        22














        Statement 1 is the precondition for statement 2:




        1. Expects: pos <= size().



        2. Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size().



          Otherwise (so here the only viable possibility is pos == size()), returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT() (i.e. ''), where modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to undefined behavior.





        str[str.size()] basically points to the null-terminator character. You can read and write it, but you may only write a '' into it.






        share|improve this answer



























          22












          22








          22







          Statement 1 is the precondition for statement 2:




          1. Expects: pos <= size().



          2. Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size().



            Otherwise (so here the only viable possibility is pos == size()), returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT() (i.e. ''), where modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to undefined behavior.





          str[str.size()] basically points to the null-terminator character. You can read and write it, but you may only write a '' into it.






          share|improve this answer















          Statement 1 is the precondition for statement 2:




          1. Expects: pos <= size().



          2. Returns: *(begin() + pos) if pos < size().



            Otherwise (so here the only viable possibility is pos == size()), returns a reference to an object of type charT with value charT() (i.e. ''), where modifying the object to any value other than charT() leads to undefined behavior.





          str[str.size()] basically points to the null-terminator character. You can read and write it, but you may only write a '' into it.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 9 at 23:20









          Mooing Duck

          47.6k1173132




          47.6k1173132










          answered Apr 9 at 8:36









          rustyxrustyx

          33.8k8103144




          33.8k8103144





















              15














              The operator expects pos to be less than or equal to size(), so if it is not less, then it is expected to be equal.






              share|improve this answer





























                15














                The operator expects pos to be less than or equal to size(), so if it is not less, then it is expected to be equal.






                share|improve this answer



























                  15












                  15








                  15







                  The operator expects pos to be less than or equal to size(), so if it is not less, then it is expected to be equal.






                  share|improve this answer















                  The operator expects pos to be less than or equal to size(), so if it is not less, then it is expected to be equal.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 9 at 9:33









                  Raimund Krämer

                  710425




                  710425










                  answered Apr 9 at 8:34









                  YolaYola

                  11.5k64774




                  11.5k64774





















                      2














                      Additionally to the previous answers please take a look at the libcxx (the llvm implementation) defines std::string::operator[] like:



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) const _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(data() + __pos);


                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(__get_pointer() + __pos);



                      Take a look at the .at() that properly throws instead.



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::at(size_type __n) const

                      if (__n >= size())
                      this->__throw_out_of_range();
                      return (*this)[__n];



                      As you can, in the first case, there is a runtime assert(thanks t.niese for pointing out) which is triggered only in debug mode whereas the second will always throw, regardless of the build options of the library.






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • 3





                        That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 8:52












                      • std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

                        – AImx1
                        Apr 9 at 8:57







                      • 2





                        @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

                        – KostasRim
                        Apr 9 at 9:00






                      • 3





                        @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 9:02












                      • Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

                        – Arthur Tacca
                        Apr 9 at 14:45
















                      2














                      Additionally to the previous answers please take a look at the libcxx (the llvm implementation) defines std::string::operator[] like:



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) const _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(data() + __pos);


                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(__get_pointer() + __pos);



                      Take a look at the .at() that properly throws instead.



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::at(size_type __n) const

                      if (__n >= size())
                      this->__throw_out_of_range();
                      return (*this)[__n];



                      As you can, in the first case, there is a runtime assert(thanks t.niese for pointing out) which is triggered only in debug mode whereas the second will always throw, regardless of the build options of the library.






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • 3





                        That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 8:52












                      • std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

                        – AImx1
                        Apr 9 at 8:57







                      • 2





                        @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

                        – KostasRim
                        Apr 9 at 9:00






                      • 3





                        @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 9:02












                      • Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

                        – Arthur Tacca
                        Apr 9 at 14:45














                      2












                      2








                      2







                      Additionally to the previous answers please take a look at the libcxx (the llvm implementation) defines std::string::operator[] like:



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) const _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(data() + __pos);


                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(__get_pointer() + __pos);



                      Take a look at the .at() that properly throws instead.



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::at(size_type __n) const

                      if (__n >= size())
                      this->__throw_out_of_range();
                      return (*this)[__n];



                      As you can, in the first case, there is a runtime assert(thanks t.niese for pointing out) which is triggered only in debug mode whereas the second will always throw, regardless of the build options of the library.






                      share|improve this answer















                      Additionally to the previous answers please take a look at the libcxx (the llvm implementation) defines std::string::operator[] like:



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) const _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(data() + __pos);


                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      inline
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::operator[](size_type __pos) _NOEXCEPT

                      _LIBCPP_ASSERT(__pos <= size(), "string index out of bounds");
                      return *(__get_pointer() + __pos);



                      Take a look at the .at() that properly throws instead.



                      template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator>
                      typename basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::const_reference
                      basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::at(size_type __n) const

                      if (__n >= size())
                      this->__throw_out_of_range();
                      return (*this)[__n];



                      As you can, in the first case, there is a runtime assert(thanks t.niese for pointing out) which is triggered only in debug mode whereas the second will always throw, regardless of the build options of the library.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Apr 9 at 8:55

























                      answered Apr 9 at 8:47









                      KostasRimKostasRim

                      1,61711026




                      1,61711026







                      • 3





                        That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 8:52












                      • std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

                        – AImx1
                        Apr 9 at 8:57







                      • 2





                        @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

                        – KostasRim
                        Apr 9 at 9:00






                      • 3





                        @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 9:02












                      • Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

                        – Arthur Tacca
                        Apr 9 at 14:45













                      • 3





                        That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 8:52












                      • std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

                        – AImx1
                        Apr 9 at 8:57







                      • 2





                        @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

                        – KostasRim
                        Apr 9 at 9:00






                      • 3





                        @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 9 at 9:02












                      • Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

                        – Arthur Tacca
                        Apr 9 at 14:45








                      3




                      3





                      That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

                      – t.niese
                      Apr 9 at 8:52






                      That's not a static assert it is a runtime assert. A static_assert is something that is check at compile time, and a static assert is done for both release and debug builds.

                      – t.niese
                      Apr 9 at 8:52














                      std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

                      – AImx1
                      Apr 9 at 8:57






                      std::string name = "StackOverflow"; std::cout << name[100]; @t.niese If it a run time assert, why does the below code doesn't crash?

                      – AImx1
                      Apr 9 at 8:57





                      2




                      2





                      @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

                      – KostasRim
                      Apr 9 at 9:00





                      @AImx1 cause you didn't specify that you want the debug build when building the library?

                      – KostasRim
                      Apr 9 at 9:00




                      3




                      3





                      @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

                      – t.niese
                      Apr 9 at 9:02






                      @AImx1 because the standard says that name[100] is undefined behavior, and not that it must throw. _LIBCPP_ASSERT is a debugging assert that has to be explicitly enabled and is not automatically enable for regular debug builds, and it is run-time dependent llvm: DebugMode

                      – t.niese
                      Apr 9 at 9:02














                      Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

                      – Arthur Tacca
                      Apr 9 at 14:45






                      Also, putting aside the _LIBCPP_ASSERT, what this code snippet really shows is there is no test like if (__pos >= size()) return _CharT(), which is what would be needed for the behaviour the original question was expecting. Without a test like this, the only way _CharT() could be returned is if it is stored in the buffer pointed to by data(). Obviously this can't the case for all possible values of __pos, unless the buffer takes up all the memory on your computer!

                      – Arthur Tacca
                      Apr 9 at 14:45


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55588104%2faccess-elements-in-stdstring-where-positon-of-string-is-greater-than-its-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

                      Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

                      Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?