Hi Maurizio,
What if the enum type was kept non-generic, but there could optionally
be a designated generic supertype inserted between the enum type and the
constant type. For example:
public enum Option implements Consumer<String> super Generic {
D<String>("-d", ...),
PROC<ProcOption>("-proc", ...),
...;
class Generic<T> implements Function<String, T> {
Generic(...) {
super(...);
}
public T apply(String s) {
...
}
}
Option(...) {
...
}
public void accept(String s) {
...
}
}
this would translate to:
public class Option extends Enum<Option> implements Consumer<String> {
public static final Generic<String> D = new Generic<>("D", 0, "-d",
...);
public static final Generic<ProcOption> PROC = new
Generic<>("PROC", 1, "-proc", ...);
...
static class Generic<T> extends Option implements Function<String, T> {
Generic(String name, int ordinal, ...) {
super(name, ordinal, ...);
}
public T apply(String s) {
...
}
}
Option(String name, int ordinal, ...) {
super(name, ordinal);
...
}
public void accept(String s) {
...
}
}
The "super" keyword in enum declaration could only designate a class in
the same compilation unit - the enum member static class.
Hm...
Regards, Peter
On 05/23/2017 07:49 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Hi,
over the last few weeks we've been carrying out experiments to test
the feasibility of the enhanced enums feature. As described in the
JEP, this feature is particularly powerful as it allows enums
constants to be carrier of generic type information, which can then be
fed back to the inference machinery.
One experiment we wanted to make was to see if enhanced enums could
make javac's own Option [1] enum better. This enum defines a bunch of
constants, one for each supported javac command line arguments (e.g
-classpath, -d, etc.). Furthermore, the enum defines method so that
each constant can be parsed given the javac command line and
processed, accordingly to some OptionHelper. Most options, along with
the value of their arguments would simply be stored into a Map<String,
String>, which is the backbone of the Options class [2].
One problem with storing option values as Strings is that clients need
to do the parsing. So, if an option has an integer argument, it's up
to the client to get the value of that option off the map, parse it
into a number and (maybe) check as to whether the range makes sense.
With enhanced enums it should be possible to do better than this; more
specifically, if enums supported generics, each option could specify a
type argument - that is, the type of the argument that javac expects
for that particular option.
So, an option with a plain String argument would be encoded as
Option<String>, as follows:
D<String>("-d", ...)
While an option for which multiple choices are available, could be
encoded using an enum as a type-argument - for instance:
PROC<ProcOption>("-proc", ...)
where ProcOption would be defined as follows:
enum ProcOption {
NONE, ONLY;
}
Finally, for an option whose argument can be a set of values, we would
use the following encoding:
G_CUSTOM<EnumSet<DebugOption>>("-g:", ...)
where DebugOption would be defined as follows:
enum DebugOption {
LINES, VARS, SOURCE;
}
So, instead of storing all options into a Map<String, String>, we
could store them into a Map<Option, Object>. Then, we would turn the
Options.get method from this:
public String get(String option) { ... }
to something like this:
public Z get(Option<Z> option) { ... }
granted, there will be some unchecked operations carried out by the
body of this method, but the map should be well-constructed by design,
so it should be safe. What we get back is that now clients can do
things like:
boolean g_vars = options.get(Option.G_CUSTOM).contains(DebugOption.VARS);
Note how we raised the expressiveness level of the client, which no
longer has to do parsing duties (and domain conversions). So, that was
the experiment we wanted to carry out - ultimately, this is the kind
of stuff you'd like to be writing with enhanced enums, so this seemed
like a reasonably comprehensive test for the feature.
Unfortunately, the results of the experiment were not as successful as
we'd hoped. As soon as we turned the Option enum into a generic class
(by merely adding a type parameter in its declaration), we immediately
started hitting dozens of compile-time errors. The errors were rather
cryptic, all pointing to some obscure failure when calling
EnumSet.noneOf or EnumSet.allOf with the newly generified Option
class. In other words, code like this:
EnumSet.noneOf(Option.class)
Was now failing. The issue that was underpinning all these failures is
- in retrospect - rather obvious: the following type:
EnumSet<Option>
is *not* a well-formed type if Option is a generic class. Why? Well,
EnumSet is declared like this:
class EnumSet<*E extends Enum<E>*> { ... }
which means the type parameter has an f-bound. In concrete terms, we
have to check that:
Option <: [E:=Option]Enum<E>
That is, the actual type-argument must conform to its declared bound.
But if we follow that check, we obtain:
Option <: [E:=Option]Enum<E>
Option <: Enum<Option>
Enum (*) <: Enum<Option>
false
(*) note that Option is now a 'raw' type - and a raw type has all
supertypes erased, as per JLS 4.8.
In other words, there's no way to write down the type of an enum set
which contains heterogeneous options - the wildcard path doesn't help
either:
EnumSet<Option<?>>
As, the above check would develop in the following way:
Option<?> <: [E:=Option<?>]Enum<E>
Option<?> <: Enum<Option<?>>
Enum<#CAP> (**) <: Enum<Option<?>>
false
(**) the supertype of a wildcard-parameterized type is obtained by
first capturing, and then recursing to the supertype, as per JLS 4.10.2
In other words, generic enums are not interoperable with common data
structures such as enum sets (and, more generally, with any f-bounded
generic data structure).
While we could just deliver the part of JEP 301 regarding sharper
typing of enum constants and leave generic enums alone, we feel
there's not much value into pursuing that path alone. After all, the
benefits of enhanced enums were exactly in combining sharper typing
with generic type information, so that enum constants could be used as
type carriers. If generic enums are not viable, then much of the
usefulness of this JEP is lost.
It is unclear at this point in time if type system improvements (which
we are pursuing as part of a separate activity [Dan is there a link
for this??]) would ameliorate the situation.
Until we figure this out, I suggest that we put this JEP on hold for
the time being
[1] -
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/langtools/file/tip/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/main/Option.java
[2] -
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/langtools/file/tip/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/util/Options.java#l48
Cheers
Maurizio
