Perfect forwarding of a callable












7















I came up with the following code to transform a R()-like into a void()-like callable:



#include <utility>

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{ return [&]() { (void) std::forward<Callable>(callable)(); }; }
// ^-- is it ok?

int main()
{
auto f = discardable([n=42]() mutable { return n--; });
f();
}


I'm worried about the capture by reference.




  1. Is it well-defined?

  2. Am I guaranteed that callable is never copied and never used after its lifetime has ended?


This is taggued C++14, but applies to all following standards.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    2 hours ago
















7















I came up with the following code to transform a R()-like into a void()-like callable:



#include <utility>

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{ return [&]() { (void) std::forward<Callable>(callable)(); }; }
// ^-- is it ok?

int main()
{
auto f = discardable([n=42]() mutable { return n--; });
f();
}


I'm worried about the capture by reference.




  1. Is it well-defined?

  2. Am I guaranteed that callable is never copied and never used after its lifetime has ended?


This is taggued C++14, but applies to all following standards.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    2 hours ago














7












7








7








I came up with the following code to transform a R()-like into a void()-like callable:



#include <utility>

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{ return [&]() { (void) std::forward<Callable>(callable)(); }; }
// ^-- is it ok?

int main()
{
auto f = discardable([n=42]() mutable { return n--; });
f();
}


I'm worried about the capture by reference.




  1. Is it well-defined?

  2. Am I guaranteed that callable is never copied and never used after its lifetime has ended?


This is taggued C++14, but applies to all following standards.










share|improve this question
















I came up with the following code to transform a R()-like into a void()-like callable:



#include <utility>

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{ return [&]() { (void) std::forward<Callable>(callable)(); }; }
// ^-- is it ok?

int main()
{
auto f = discardable([n=42]() mutable { return n--; });
f();
}


I'm worried about the capture by reference.




  1. Is it well-defined?

  2. Am I guaranteed that callable is never copied and never used after its lifetime has ended?


This is taggued C++14, but applies to all following standards.







c++ lambda c++14 perfect-forwarding






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







YSC

















asked 2 hours ago









YSCYSC

21.9k350103




21.9k350103








  • 3





    Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    2 hours ago














  • 3





    Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    2 hours ago








3




3





Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture.

– Maxim Egorushkin
2 hours ago





Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture.

– Maxim Egorushkin
2 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3














Lambdas are anonymous structs with an operator(), the capture list is a fancy way of specifying the type of its members. Capturing by reference really is just what it sounds like: you have reference members. It isn't hard to see the reference dangles.



This is a case where you specifically don't want to perfectly forward: you have different semantics depending on whether the argument is a lvalue or rvalue reference.



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable)
{
return [&] { (void) callable(); };
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{
return [callable = std::forward<Callable>(callable)] { // move, don't copy
(void) std::move(callable)(); // If you want rvalue semantics
};
}





share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    17 mins ago



















4














Your program is UB as you use dangling reference of the captured lambda.



So to perfect forward capture in lambda, you may use



return [f = std::conditional_t<
std::is_lvalue_reference<Callable>::value,
std::reference_wrapper<std::remove_reference_t<Callable>>,
Callable>{std::forward<Callable>(callable)}]
{
std::forward<Callable>(f)();
};


It move-constructs the temporary lambda.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

    – bartop
    2 hours ago






  • 6





    Ahhh what a beautiful language

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago



















4














Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture. To prevent that, if an argument is an r-value it needs to be copied.



A working example:



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable) { // This one makes a copy of the temporary.
return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(static_cast<Callable&&>(callable)());
};
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable) {
return [&callable]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(callable());
};
}


You can still face lifetime issues if callable is an l-value reference but its lifetime scope is smaller than that of the lambda capture returned by discardable. So, it may be the safest and easiest to always copy callable.



As a side note, although there are new specialised utilities that perfect-forward the value category of the function object, like std::apply, the standard library algorithms always copy function objects by accepting them by value. So that if one overloaded both operator()()& and operator()()&& the standard library would always use operator()()&.






share|improve this answer


























  • Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago






  • 2





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago








  • 2





    "the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

    – Jarod42
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

    – Arne Vogel
    36 mins ago













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%2f54418941%2fperfect-forwarding-of-a-callable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














Lambdas are anonymous structs with an operator(), the capture list is a fancy way of specifying the type of its members. Capturing by reference really is just what it sounds like: you have reference members. It isn't hard to see the reference dangles.



This is a case where you specifically don't want to perfectly forward: you have different semantics depending on whether the argument is a lvalue or rvalue reference.



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable)
{
return [&] { (void) callable(); };
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{
return [callable = std::forward<Callable>(callable)] { // move, don't copy
(void) std::move(callable)(); // If you want rvalue semantics
};
}





share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    17 mins ago
















3














Lambdas are anonymous structs with an operator(), the capture list is a fancy way of specifying the type of its members. Capturing by reference really is just what it sounds like: you have reference members. It isn't hard to see the reference dangles.



This is a case where you specifically don't want to perfectly forward: you have different semantics depending on whether the argument is a lvalue or rvalue reference.



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable)
{
return [&] { (void) callable(); };
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{
return [callable = std::forward<Callable>(callable)] { // move, don't copy
(void) std::move(callable)(); // If you want rvalue semantics
};
}





share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    17 mins ago














3












3








3







Lambdas are anonymous structs with an operator(), the capture list is a fancy way of specifying the type of its members. Capturing by reference really is just what it sounds like: you have reference members. It isn't hard to see the reference dangles.



This is a case where you specifically don't want to perfectly forward: you have different semantics depending on whether the argument is a lvalue or rvalue reference.



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable)
{
return [&] { (void) callable(); };
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{
return [callable = std::forward<Callable>(callable)] { // move, don't copy
(void) std::move(callable)(); // If you want rvalue semantics
};
}





share|improve this answer













Lambdas are anonymous structs with an operator(), the capture list is a fancy way of specifying the type of its members. Capturing by reference really is just what it sounds like: you have reference members. It isn't hard to see the reference dangles.



This is a case where you specifically don't want to perfectly forward: you have different semantics depending on whether the argument is a lvalue or rvalue reference.



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable)
{
return [&] { (void) callable(); };
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable)
{
return [callable = std::forward<Callable>(callable)] { // move, don't copy
(void) std::move(callable)(); // If you want rvalue semantics
};
}






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 1 hour ago









Passer ByPasser By

9,30132454




9,30132454








  • 1





    Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    17 mins ago














  • 1





    Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    17 mins ago








1




1





Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

– Maxim Egorushkin
17 mins ago





Are you sure forward and move should not be reversed?

– Maxim Egorushkin
17 mins ago













4














Your program is UB as you use dangling reference of the captured lambda.



So to perfect forward capture in lambda, you may use



return [f = std::conditional_t<
std::is_lvalue_reference<Callable>::value,
std::reference_wrapper<std::remove_reference_t<Callable>>,
Callable>{std::forward<Callable>(callable)}]
{
std::forward<Callable>(f)();
};


It move-constructs the temporary lambda.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

    – bartop
    2 hours ago






  • 6





    Ahhh what a beautiful language

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago
















4














Your program is UB as you use dangling reference of the captured lambda.



So to perfect forward capture in lambda, you may use



return [f = std::conditional_t<
std::is_lvalue_reference<Callable>::value,
std::reference_wrapper<std::remove_reference_t<Callable>>,
Callable>{std::forward<Callable>(callable)}]
{
std::forward<Callable>(f)();
};


It move-constructs the temporary lambda.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

    – bartop
    2 hours ago






  • 6





    Ahhh what a beautiful language

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago














4












4








4







Your program is UB as you use dangling reference of the captured lambda.



So to perfect forward capture in lambda, you may use



return [f = std::conditional_t<
std::is_lvalue_reference<Callable>::value,
std::reference_wrapper<std::remove_reference_t<Callable>>,
Callable>{std::forward<Callable>(callable)}]
{
std::forward<Callable>(f)();
};


It move-constructs the temporary lambda.






share|improve this answer















Your program is UB as you use dangling reference of the captured lambda.



So to perfect forward capture in lambda, you may use



return [f = std::conditional_t<
std::is_lvalue_reference<Callable>::value,
std::reference_wrapper<std::remove_reference_t<Callable>>,
Callable>{std::forward<Callable>(callable)}]
{
std::forward<Callable>(f)();
};


It move-constructs the temporary lambda.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 2 hours ago









Jarod42Jarod42

115k12102182




115k12102182








  • 1





    Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

    – bartop
    2 hours ago






  • 6





    Ahhh what a beautiful language

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago














  • 1





    Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

    – bartop
    2 hours ago






  • 6





    Ahhh what a beautiful language

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago








1




1





Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

– bartop
2 hours ago





Is forwarding captured variable really necessary?

– bartop
2 hours ago




6




6





Ahhh what a beautiful language

– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago





Ahhh what a beautiful language

– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago











4














Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture. To prevent that, if an argument is an r-value it needs to be copied.



A working example:



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable) { // This one makes a copy of the temporary.
return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(static_cast<Callable&&>(callable)());
};
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable) {
return [&callable]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(callable());
};
}


You can still face lifetime issues if callable is an l-value reference but its lifetime scope is smaller than that of the lambda capture returned by discardable. So, it may be the safest and easiest to always copy callable.



As a side note, although there are new specialised utilities that perfect-forward the value category of the function object, like std::apply, the standard library algorithms always copy function objects by accepting them by value. So that if one overloaded both operator()()& and operator()()&& the standard library would always use operator()()&.






share|improve this answer


























  • Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago






  • 2





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago








  • 2





    "the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

    – Jarod42
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

    – Arne Vogel
    36 mins ago


















4














Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture. To prevent that, if an argument is an r-value it needs to be copied.



A working example:



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable) { // This one makes a copy of the temporary.
return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(static_cast<Callable&&>(callable)());
};
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable) {
return [&callable]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(callable());
};
}


You can still face lifetime issues if callable is an l-value reference but its lifetime scope is smaller than that of the lambda capture returned by discardable. So, it may be the safest and easiest to always copy callable.



As a side note, although there are new specialised utilities that perfect-forward the value category of the function object, like std::apply, the standard library algorithms always copy function objects by accepting them by value. So that if one overloaded both operator()()& and operator()()&& the standard library would always use operator()()&.






share|improve this answer


























  • Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago






  • 2





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago








  • 2





    "the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

    – Jarod42
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

    – Arne Vogel
    36 mins ago
















4












4








4







Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture. To prevent that, if an argument is an r-value it needs to be copied.



A working example:



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable) { // This one makes a copy of the temporary.
return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(static_cast<Callable&&>(callable)());
};
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable) {
return [&callable]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(callable());
};
}


You can still face lifetime issues if callable is an l-value reference but its lifetime scope is smaller than that of the lambda capture returned by discardable. So, it may be the safest and easiest to always copy callable.



As a side note, although there are new specialised utilities that perfect-forward the value category of the function object, like std::apply, the standard library algorithms always copy function objects by accepting them by value. So that if one overloaded both operator()()& and operator()()&& the standard library would always use operator()()&.






share|improve this answer















Since callable can be an xvalue there is a chance that it gets destroyed before the lambda capture, hence leaving you with a dangling reference in the capture. To prevent that, if an argument is an r-value it needs to be copied.



A working example:



template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable&& callable) { // This one makes a copy of the temporary.
return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(static_cast<Callable&&>(callable)());
};
}

template<class Callable>
auto discardable(Callable& callable) {
return [&callable]() mutable {
static_cast<void>(callable());
};
}


You can still face lifetime issues if callable is an l-value reference but its lifetime scope is smaller than that of the lambda capture returned by discardable. So, it may be the safest and easiest to always copy callable.



As a side note, although there are new specialised utilities that perfect-forward the value category of the function object, like std::apply, the standard library algorithms always copy function objects by accepting them by value. So that if one overloaded both operator()()& and operator()()&& the standard library would always use operator()()&.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 20 mins ago

























answered 1 hour ago









Maxim EgorushkinMaxim Egorushkin

86.8k11101184




86.8k11101184













  • Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago






  • 2





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago








  • 2





    "the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

    – Jarod42
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

    – Arne Vogel
    36 mins ago





















  • Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago






  • 2





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    1 hour ago








  • 2





    "the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

    – Jarod42
    1 hour ago








  • 1





    So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

    – Arne Vogel
    36 mins ago



















Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago





Does it need std::move in the capture thingie? So as to avoid a copy if unnecessary? Genuine question; I am a little behind on the latest gadgets.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago




2




2





@LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

– Maxim Egorushkin
1 hour ago







@LightnessRacesinOrbit Someone may declare operator()()&& along with operator()()&. IMO, that is brittle, but conceivable. Although the standard library just makes copies of function objects and is not concerned with such trifles.

– Maxim Egorushkin
1 hour ago






1




1





Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago







Just seems like a wasted copy for nothing. You can still invoke operator()()&& on it

– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago






2




2





"the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

– Jarod42
1 hour ago







"the standard library always copies function objects by accepting them by value". That's what STL did when forwarding references didn't exist. std::apply uses forwarding reference as counter-example.

– Jarod42
1 hour ago






1




1





So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

– Arne Vogel
36 mins ago







So, why would you copy when you can move? I totally don't get it. return [callable = std::move(callable)]() mutable {…}

– Arne Vogel
36 mins ago




















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%2f54418941%2fperfect-forwarding-of-a-callable%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

Why is a white electrical wire connected to 2 black wires?

Waikiki

What are all the squawk codes?