Add C++23 fold algorithms

[hkaiser]

C++23 added the following fold algorithms:

• ranges::fold_left (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/ranges/fold_left)
• ranges::fold_left_first (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/ranges/fold_left_first)
• ranges::fold_right (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/ranges/fold_right)
• ranges::fold_right_first (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/ranges/fold_right_first)
• ranges::fold_left_with_iter (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/ranges/fold_left_with_iter)
• ranges::fold_left_first_with_iter (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/ranges/fold_left_first_with_iter)

These algorithms are specified as enforcing sequential execution. We should discuss whether those should be added to HPX anyways.

See also: http://eel.is/c++draft/alg.fold

[gonidelis]

Note 1: Only ranges overloads were proposed. Note 2: What's the argument against integrating them with HPX? If we do, again, we are closer to standards conformance + we could end up with a proof of concept for their parallel versions? Note 3: Is sequential enforcement just because they are under ranges or is it unique to the nature of the fold algorithms? Isn't fold a more generic std::reduce/std::accumulate after all (same problems regarding parallelization should be expected)?

[Johan511]

ranges::fold_left_first and ranges::fold_right_first return std::optional type (C++17) ranges::fold_left_with_iter and ranges::fold_left_first_with_iter return std::in_value_result (C++23)

so should we enable fold algorithms only if HPX compiled with C++23 std?

[hkaiser]

ranges::fold_left_first and ranges::fold_right_first return std::optional type (C++17) ranges::fold_left_with_iter and ranges::fold_left_first_with_iter return std::in_value_result (C++23)

so should we enable fold algorithms only if HPX compiled with C++23 std?

No, we should have those algorithms such that people can use them with C++17, if needed.

[Johan511]

We would have to deviate from the standard. We could alternately work on hpx::in_value_result that does seem better.

[hkaiser]

We would have to deviate from the standard. We could alternately work on hpx::in_value_result that does seem better.

Yes, that would have to be added as well. I thin pre-c++23 these should be in namespace hpx::experimental, starting C++23 they should be in namespace hpx.

[Johan511]

sure, do we have a hpx::optional? if so do you suggest returning it instead of std::optional? If not, do we plan on implementing it?

[hkaiser]

sure, do we have a hpx::optional? if so do you suggest returning it instead of std::optional? If not, do we plan on implementing it?

Yes, please use hpx::optional, it will fall back to std::optional, if available (see: https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx/blob/master/libs/core/datastructures/include/hpx/datastructures/optional.hpp).

[vivekd01]

Update the CMakeLists.txt file of your project to set the appropriate C++ standard and compiler flags. Add the following lines to enable C++23 features: set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 23) set(CMAKE_CXX_EXTENSIONS OFF) set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS} -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic")