Why there is no std::construct_at in C++17?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1












C++17 adds std::destroy_at, but there is no std::construct_at counterpart. Why is that? Couldn't it be implemented as simply as:



template <typename T, typename... Args>
void construct_at(T* addr, Args&&... args) 
 new (addr) T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);


Which would enable to avoid that not-entirely-natural placement new syntax:



int* ptr = (int*)::operator new(sizeof(int));
construct_at<int>(ptr, 1); // instead of 'new (ptr) int(1);'
std::cout << *ptr;
std::destroy_at(ptr);
::operator delete(ptr);





c++ c++17 placement-new







share|improve this question

















  • 1




    in my ignorance i rather wonder what destroy_at is good for ;)
    – user463035818
    30 mins ago






  • 3




    @user463035818 - How would one do a pseudo destructor call for a std::string object? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want you to imagine the required expression vividly.
    – StoryTeller
    29 mins ago











  • @user463035818 this is useful when implementing advanced low level stuff like for example std::any or std::optional. In everyday code you will not use that.
    – Marek R
    12 mins ago










  • @StoryTeller Let me be another one naive, but what is wrong with auto s = new string"test"; s->~string();? Am I missing premise of the question? I guess calling pseudo destructors on compound template types would be syntax nightmare, but typedef suffices. Is destroy_at solving same problems as make_* wrappers?
    – luk32
    10 mins ago











  • @luk32 - Try it without a using declaration in sight. Fully qualify std::string.
    – StoryTeller
    5 mins ago














up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1












C++17 adds std::destroy_at, but there is no std::construct_at counterpart. Why is that? Couldn't it be implemented as simply as:



template <typename T, typename... Args>
void construct_at(T* addr, Args&&... args) 
 new (addr) T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);


Which would enable to avoid that not-entirely-natural placement new syntax:



int* ptr = (int*)::operator new(sizeof(int));
construct_at<int>(ptr, 1); // instead of 'new (ptr) int(1);'
std::cout << *ptr;
std::destroy_at(ptr);
::operator delete(ptr);





c++ c++17 placement-new







share|improve this question

















  • 1




    in my ignorance i rather wonder what destroy_at is good for ;)
    – user463035818
    30 mins ago






  • 3




    @user463035818 - How would one do a pseudo destructor call for a std::string object? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want you to imagine the required expression vividly.
    – StoryTeller
    29 mins ago











  • @user463035818 this is useful when implementing advanced low level stuff like for example std::any or std::optional. In everyday code you will not use that.
    – Marek R
    12 mins ago










  • @StoryTeller Let me be another one naive, but what is wrong with auto s = new string"test"; s->~string();? Am I missing premise of the question? I guess calling pseudo destructors on compound template types would be syntax nightmare, but typedef suffices. Is destroy_at solving same problems as make_* wrappers?
    – luk32
    10 mins ago











  • @luk32 - Try it without a using declaration in sight. Fully qualify std::string.
    – StoryTeller
    5 mins ago












up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1






1





C++17 adds std::destroy_at, but there is no std::construct_at counterpart. Why is that? Couldn't it be implemented as simply as:



template <typename T, typename... Args>
void construct_at(T* addr, Args&&... args) 
 new (addr) T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);


Which would enable to avoid that not-entirely-natural placement new syntax:



int* ptr = (int*)::operator new(sizeof(int));
construct_at<int>(ptr, 1); // instead of 'new (ptr) int(1);'
std::cout << *ptr;
std::destroy_at(ptr);
::operator delete(ptr);





c++ c++17 placement-new







share|improve this question













C++17 adds std::destroy_at, but there is no std::construct_at counterpart. Why is that? Couldn't it be implemented as simply as:



template <typename T, typename... Args>
void construct_at(T* addr, Args&&... args) 
 new (addr) T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);


Which would enable to avoid that not-entirely-natural placement new syntax:



int* ptr = (int*)::operator new(sizeof(int));
construct_at<int>(ptr, 1); // instead of 'new (ptr) int(1);'
std::cout << *ptr;
std::destroy_at(ptr);
::operator delete(ptr);





c++ c++17 placement-new




c++ c++17 placement-new






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 35 mins ago









Daniel Langr

5,6272042




5,6272042







  • 1




    in my ignorance i rather wonder what destroy_at is good for ;)
    – user463035818
    30 mins ago






  • 3




    @user463035818 - How would one do a pseudo destructor call for a std::string object? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want you to imagine the required expression vividly.
    – StoryTeller
    29 mins ago











  • @user463035818 this is useful when implementing advanced low level stuff like for example std::any or std::optional. In everyday code you will not use that.
    – Marek R
    12 mins ago










  • @StoryTeller Let me be another one naive, but what is wrong with auto s = new string"test"; s->~string();? Am I missing premise of the question? I guess calling pseudo destructors on compound template types would be syntax nightmare, but typedef suffices. Is destroy_at solving same problems as make_* wrappers?
    – luk32
    10 mins ago











  • @luk32 - Try it without a using declaration in sight. Fully qualify std::string.
    – StoryTeller
    5 mins ago












  • 1




    in my ignorance i rather wonder what destroy_at is good for ;)
    – user463035818
    30 mins ago






  • 3




    @user463035818 - How would one do a pseudo destructor call for a std::string object? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want you to imagine the required expression vividly.
    – StoryTeller
    29 mins ago











  • @user463035818 this is useful when implementing advanced low level stuff like for example std::any or std::optional. In everyday code you will not use that.
    – Marek R
    12 mins ago










  • @StoryTeller Let me be another one naive, but what is wrong with auto s = new string"test"; s->~string();? Am I missing premise of the question? I guess calling pseudo destructors on compound template types would be syntax nightmare, but typedef suffices. Is destroy_at solving same problems as make_* wrappers?
    – luk32
    10 mins ago











  • @luk32 - Try it without a using declaration in sight. Fully qualify std::string.
    – StoryTeller
    5 mins ago







1




1




in my ignorance i rather wonder what destroy_at is good for ;)
– user463035818
30 mins ago




in my ignorance i rather wonder what destroy_at is good for ;)
– user463035818
30 mins ago




3




3




@user463035818 - How would one do a pseudo destructor call for a std::string object? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want you to imagine the required expression vividly.
– StoryTeller
29 mins ago





@user463035818 - How would one do a pseudo destructor call for a std::string object? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want you to imagine the required expression vividly.
– StoryTeller
29 mins ago













@user463035818 this is useful when implementing advanced low level stuff like for example std::any or std::optional. In everyday code you will not use that.
– Marek R
12 mins ago




@user463035818 this is useful when implementing advanced low level stuff like for example std::any or std::optional. In everyday code you will not use that.
– Marek R
12 mins ago












@StoryTeller Let me be another one naive, but what is wrong with auto s = new string"test"; s->~string();? Am I missing premise of the question? I guess calling pseudo destructors on compound template types would be syntax nightmare, but typedef suffices. Is destroy_at solving same problems as make_* wrappers?
– luk32
10 mins ago





@StoryTeller Let me be another one naive, but what is wrong with auto s = new string"test"; s->~string();? Am I missing premise of the question? I guess calling pseudo destructors on compound template types would be syntax nightmare, but typedef suffices. Is destroy_at solving same problems as make_* wrappers?
– luk32
10 mins ago













@luk32 - Try it without a using declaration in sight. Fully qualify std::string.
– StoryTeller
5 mins ago




@luk32 - Try it without a using declaration in sight. Fully qualify std::string.
– StoryTeller
5 mins ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













There is such thing, but is named in different way then your expectation:



  • uninitialized_copy
    copies a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory


  • uninitialized_copy_n
    (C++11)
    copies a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_fill
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)



  • uninitialized_fill_n
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move
    (C++17)
    moves a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move_n
    (C++17)
    moves a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count





share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
    – shawn
    24 mins ago










  • No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
    – Quentin
    23 mins ago






  • 1




    Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
    – Daniel Langr
    23 mins ago










  • there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
    – Marek R
    18 mins ago






  • 1




    @shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
    – M.M
    11 mins ago

















up vote
3
down vote













There is std::allocator_traits::construct - see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/allocator_traits/construct . There used to be one more in std::allocator, but that got removed, rationale in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0174r0.html#2.4






share|improve this answer




















  • There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
    – Daniel Langr
    20 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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f52966560%2fwhy-there-is-no-stdconstruct-at-in-c17%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote













There is such thing, but is named in different way then your expectation:



  • uninitialized_copy
    copies a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory


  • uninitialized_copy_n
    (C++11)
    copies a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_fill
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)



  • uninitialized_fill_n
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move
    (C++17)
    moves a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move_n
    (C++17)
    moves a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count





share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
    – shawn
    24 mins ago










  • No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
    – Quentin
    23 mins ago






  • 1




    Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
    – Daniel Langr
    23 mins ago










  • there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
    – Marek R
    18 mins ago






  • 1




    @shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
    – M.M
    11 mins ago














up vote
5
down vote













There is such thing, but is named in different way then your expectation:



  • uninitialized_copy
    copies a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory


  • uninitialized_copy_n
    (C++11)
    copies a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_fill
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)



  • uninitialized_fill_n
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move
    (C++17)
    moves a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move_n
    (C++17)
    moves a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count





share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
    – shawn
    24 mins ago










  • No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
    – Quentin
    23 mins ago






  • 1




    Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
    – Daniel Langr
    23 mins ago










  • there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
    – Marek R
    18 mins ago






  • 1




    @shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
    – M.M
    11 mins ago












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









There is such thing, but is named in different way then your expectation:



  • uninitialized_copy
    copies a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory


  • uninitialized_copy_n
    (C++11)
    copies a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_fill
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)



  • uninitialized_fill_n
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move
    (C++17)
    moves a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move_n
    (C++17)
    moves a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count





share|improve this answer














There is such thing, but is named in different way then your expectation:



  • uninitialized_copy
    copies a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory


  • uninitialized_copy_n
    (C++11)
    copies a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_fill
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)



  • uninitialized_fill_n
    copies an object to an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move
    (C++17)
    moves a range of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_move_n
    (C++17)
    moves a number of objects to an uninitialized area of memory
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_default_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by default-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a range
    (function template)


  • uninitialized_value_construct_n
    (C++17)
    constructs objects by value-initialization in an uninitialized area of memory, defined by a start and a count






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 17 mins ago

























answered 25 mins ago









Marek R

12.1k22669




12.1k22669







  • 2




    That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
    – shawn
    24 mins ago










  • No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
    – Quentin
    23 mins ago






  • 1




    Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
    – Daniel Langr
    23 mins ago










  • there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
    – Marek R
    18 mins ago






  • 1




    @shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
    – M.M
    11 mins ago












  • 2




    That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
    – shawn
    24 mins ago










  • No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
    – Quentin
    23 mins ago






  • 1




    Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
    – Daniel Langr
    23 mins ago










  • there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
    – Marek R
    18 mins ago






  • 1




    @shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
    – M.M
    11 mins ago







2




2




That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
– shawn
24 mins ago




That's why C++ is less and less popular .... :(
– shawn
24 mins ago












No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
– Quentin
23 mins ago




No emplace-style parameter-forwarding function though.
– Quentin
23 mins ago




1




1




Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
– Daniel Langr
23 mins ago




Is any of these functions able to forward arbitrary arguments to constructor?
– Daniel Langr
23 mins ago












there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
– Marek R
18 mins ago




there is uninitialized_move on the list above.
– Marek R
18 mins ago




1




1




@shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
– M.M
11 mins ago




@shawn eh... this is stuff you don't need for normal coding and other language don't even do
– M.M
11 mins ago












up vote
3
down vote













There is std::allocator_traits::construct - see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/allocator_traits/construct . There used to be one more in std::allocator, but that got removed, rationale in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0174r0.html#2.4






share|improve this answer




















  • There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
    – Daniel Langr
    20 mins ago














up vote
3
down vote













There is std::allocator_traits::construct - see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/allocator_traits/construct . There used to be one more in std::allocator, but that got removed, rationale in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0174r0.html#2.4






share|improve this answer




















  • There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
    – Daniel Langr
    20 mins ago












up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









There is std::allocator_traits::construct - see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/allocator_traits/construct . There used to be one more in std::allocator, but that got removed, rationale in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0174r0.html#2.4






share|improve this answer












There is std::allocator_traits::construct - see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/allocator_traits/construct . There used to be one more in std::allocator, but that got removed, rationale in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0174r0.html#2.4







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 22 mins ago









jakub_d

5349




5349











  • There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
    – Daniel Langr
    20 mins ago
















  • There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
    – Daniel Langr
    20 mins ago















There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
– Daniel Langr
20 mins ago




There is also std::allocator_traits::destroy and still, there is std::destroy_at as well.
– Daniel Langr
20 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52966560%2fwhy-there-is-no-stdconstruct-at-in-c17%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
Read more

List of Gilmore Girls characters

Image
The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of ...
Read more