> On Dec 17, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I’ve been going through some notes and realized I missed a couple of things
> when I put my list together:
>
> * access control for extensions declaring protocol conformances
> * memberwise deriving of protocol implementations
>
> I also found an example of the “same type constraints” item I mentioned and
> it is different than discussed so far:
>
> struct S<T, U> {}
> extension S where T == U {} // error
>
> Are you considering any of these for Swift 3?
I’ve been picking Doug’s brain about this kind of stuff lately.
This one is somewhat similar to a same type requirement making a generic type
parameter concrete, in the sense that the number of ‘primary archetypes’
becomes smaller than the number of generic parameters, which isn’t handled
everywhere yet. For example, SIL walks the list of primary archetypes in order
to map a generic type parameter’s depth/index to an archetype in several places.
With ‘secondary archetypes’, things are more flexible so this works:
protocol P { typealias X }
func foo<T : P, U : P where T.X == U.X>()
However, as Doug explained to me in person today, we’re still not doing a great
job here. The list of requirements in a generic signature line up with the
lists of primary and secondary archetypes in a tricky way. Also, type sugar
allowing us to distinguish T.X from U.X is lost here since both types are
mapped to the same identical type while building the generic signature, which
you can imagine leads to poor diagnostics in more complex examples. Instead
they need to have the same canonical type but still print differently, much
like (X) and X, or [X] and Array<X>.
Slava
>
> Access control for extensions declaring protocol conformances seems is the
> highest priority out of this group IMO.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>> On Dec 15, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2015, at 7:25 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dmitri, Slava and Doug thank you for taking the time to respond. I
>>> apologize for not thanking you sooner.
>>>
>>> Since the core team has a loosely shared understanding of the goals but
>>> hasn't had time to write it down yet I thought it might be helpful if I put
>>> together a summary of the features that seem to me like obvious candidates
>>> for completing the current generic system. If I have missed anything
>>> significant please point that out.
>>
>> This is helpful, thank you!
>>
>> Lots of comments below. An overarching theme here is that I'm trying to
>> scope down the list to what we need to achieve ABI stability and an
>> expressive library fewer features means we're more likely to succeed with
>> better quality.
>>
>>> I'm placing a "**" next to items that I beleive I have seen mentioned by
>>> the core team as desired features. This is based on memory and may be
>>> innacurate or may be based on desires expressed, but not necessarily pinned
>>> to the Swift 3 timeline.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping the core team might be able to indicate which items are likely
>>> to be part of the work you're doing on Swift 3, which items you might be
>>> interested in the community contributing to, and which items are unliekly
>>> to be considered during the Swift 3 timeframe even with community
>>> involvement. This could help interested contributors start thinking about
>>> what they might be interested in working on while we wait for a more
>>> complete document describing the vision.
>>>
>>> - ** generic typealias
>>
>> This isn't high on my list. It's a good feature, and I want it someday, but
>> introducing generic typealiases won't have any impact on the ABI and
>> therefore can wait IMO.
>>
>>>
>>> - allow protocols to specify a non-covarying Self in static method
>>> declarations (a possible solution to the problem of conforming non-final
>>> classes in Cocoa to protocols containing factory methods)
>>
>> Maybe. This isn't terribly high on my list, but in also behind on the
>> discussion.
>>>
>>> - extensions
>>> - ** allow same type constraints
>>
>> I'm assuming you mean an extension like
>>
>> extension Array where Element == String {}
>>
>> Yes, it's something we want to support
>>
>>> - ** allow protocol conformance in constrained extensions
>>
>> This is something like:
>>
>> extension Array : Equatable where Element : Equatable {}
>>
>> It is very very high priority for Swift 3.
>>
>>> - allow protocol conformance in protocol extensions
>>
>> This is something like:
>>
>> extension CollectionType : Equatable where Generator.Element : Equatable {}
>>
>> This is probably not a priority for Swift 3. It seems very cool, and I've
>> advocated for similar features in the past (in more static generics
>> systems), but the potential for ambiguities with such definitions is very
>> high and the runtime cost for asking questions such as "is this T
>> Equatable?" can be very high when this feature is in play.
>>
>>>
>>> - associated type constraints
>>> - use of Self as a superclass constraint
>>
>> This wasn't on my list at all. Care to elaborate on why this is important?
>>
>>> - ** where clause constraining inidividual associated types
>>> - ** where clause relating multiple assocated types
>>
>> Yes to both. We need the to properly express some relationships in the
>> standard library types, such as a SubSequence's Element type matching the
>> Element type of the sequence itself.
>>
>>>
>>> - existentials for protocols with associated types
>>> - protocol existentials don't conform to the protocol itself
>>> - ** fully bound: protocol<GeneratorType where Element == Int>
>>> - ** fully constrained: protocol<GeneratorType where Element:
>>> CustomStringConvertible>
>>> - partially bound / constrained - allow access to members only
>>> mentioning constrained associated types
>>> - ** unbound - allow access to members not mentioning Self or
>>> associated types
>>> - composition: protocol<P1, P2 where P1.Associated: P3, P2.Associated
>>> == Int, P1.Other == P2.Other>
>>
>> This one is tough. It is a very, very common user request and existentials
>> are painfully under implemented in Swift. On the other hand, it's an
>> additive feature that isn't likely (IMO!) to be important for ABI
>> stabilization in the language or library. So, I would put it out of scope
>> for Swift 3.
>>
>>> - nesting (per Slava's email)
>>> - ** Generic types nested inside generic functions
>>> - ** Generic types nested inside generic types
>>> - ** Generic functions nested inside generic functions which capture
>>> values or outer generic types
>>
>> I think Slava and I disagree on this one ;)
>>
>> I don't consider this critical for Swift 3. The compiler will greatly
>> improve simply by making this work (because the dumb assumptions that block
>> this feature likely trigger additional bugs), but we don't need to allow it
>> for ABI stability. There are a handful of places in the standard library
>> where we've had to promote a type that would normally be nested to the top
>> level to work around this, but we could live with that as a smallish ABI
>> wart in the long term and introduce generic typealiases to clean up the
>> syntax once those features become available.
>>
>>> Some things that I expect are out of scope for Swift 3 but am mentioning
>>> for completeness / confirmation of that:
>>>
>>> - variadic generics
>>> - higher kinded types
>>> - higher rank types
>>
>> Agreed that all are out of scope for Swift 3. The first is a feature of
>> particular interest to me... But absolutely is out of scope. I also want to
>> eventually use variadic generics to extend arbitrary length tuples of
>> Equatable types to make them Equatable, for example ;)
>>
>> A couple features you didn't mention that I consider in scope for Swift 3
>> generics:
>>
>> - generic subscripts (the standard library might need these), e.g.,
>>
>> subscript<C : SequenceType where C.Generator.Element == Index> (indices:
>> C) -> [Index]
>>
>> - recursive protocol constraints, where an associated type can be stated to
>> conform to its enclosing protocol (directly or indirectly), eg,
>>
>> protocol SequenceType {
>> typealias SubSequence : SequenceType
>> }
>>
>> - operators defined in types (only indirectly related to generics):
>>
>> extension Array where Element : Equatable {
>> func ==(lhs: Array, rhs: Array) -> Bool { ... }
>> }
>>
>> - "real" default implementations in protocols. It looks like a syntactic
>> simplification from
>> Putting the definition in an extension, but putting the default
>> implementation in the protocol itself has an important effect on resilience:
>> one should be able to add requirements to a protocol without breaking ABI so
>> long as those requirements have a default implementation.
>>
>> Several of these (recursive constraints, where clauses placing requirements
>> on associated types in protocols, etc) are partly aimed at eliminated many
>> of the underscored protocols in the standard library, because we don't want
>> them to be part of the library ABI.
>>
>> I suspect I'll remember other small things, but that's the "big" list... and
>> it's size perhaps illustrates why we need to choose carefully to maintain
>> focus.
>>
>> - Doug
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the stated focus areas for Swift 3 is to complete the generics
>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>> How far along is the design for the “complete” generics system?
>>>>
>>>> There’s a loose shared understanding of the pieces we need among the
>>>> compiler and standard library developers that have been co-evolving the
>>>> generics system, but it’s not written down in any single place.
>>>>
>>>>> Is there appetite among the core team to involve the community in
>>>>> evaluating planned features or submitting proposals to complement
>>>>> existing plans?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, absolutely. I feel like we (the core team) need to articulate our
>>>> vision here—what we feel we need to accomplish (in features, in the
>>>> standard library API, in the implementation) in Swift 3 vs. what we
>>>> believe we can introduce later on, how the pieces all fit together,
>>>> etc.—to help facilitate those discussions.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, is there any documentation other than
>>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/Generics.rst
>>>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/Generics.rst> describing
>>>>> in detail what the complete vision for the generics system is and what
>>>>> new features will be added in Swift 3 (as well as any generics features
>>>>> that have been decided against for Swift or version 3 specifically)?
>>>>
>>>> No, that document is the best overall documentation for the vision of the
>>>> generics system, despite being mostly untouched for more than two years
>>>> and lacking newer features (protocol extensions, anyone?).
>>>>
>>>> So, we need to write up a document describing our vision here. It’s going
>>>> to take a little time, both because it’s a nontrivial task and because the
>>>> likely principal authors are also engaged in other large Swift 3 tasks
>>>> (e.g.,
>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0005-objective-c-name-translation.md
>>>>
>>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0005-objective-c-name-translation.md>)
>>>>
>>>> - Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
