David, Thank you for taking the time to continue working on a proposal for typed throws. I agree that this feature is very desirable and appreciate the work you’re doing to bring forward a proposal. I think it’s a great start but also has some room for improvement.
First, I think it could be strengthened by incorporating some learning from Rust. My impression is that the Rust community is very happy with typed error handling. Adding some detail about their experience would provide a counter-example to those who are concerned about the experience in Java and C++. I agree that error types are an important part of an API contract. One of the big hurdles to doing this well is the need to catch errors when all that needs to be done is to wrap and rethrow them. Ideally should not need to do this just to perform a simple type translation to map the underlying error into the type we wish to expose as part of a stable API contract. You might want to take a look at the From mechanism Rust uses to facilitate this. IMO a proposal for typed error handling should address this issue in some way (even if the author determines this mechanism is not necessary or a good design cannot be identified). I would also like to see much more detail on why you think allowing a function to throw multiple error types is problematic. My impression is that you have concerns from a usability point of view. I am on the fence here to some degree, but definitely leaning in the direction that allowing a function to throw multiple error types is better. The primary reason I lean this way is that it enables more re-use of standard error types. Custom error types for an API often make sense, but not always. I am concerned about the need to create them just because our API contract might reasonably include two or three of the standard error types. Adding new types when they are not necessary introduces complexity and cognitive overhead. It also complicates catching of errors if the new custom type is a two or three case enum that just embeds the underlying error. These problems will lead many people to just revert to an untyped throws clause. Objections to typed errors along these lines are common and legitimate. They will arise during review. It is best if you address them in the proposal now in order to focus a review on your solutions. My personal opinion is that allowing multiple error types and including a mechanism to perform automatic wrapping when appropriate would go a long way towards solving them. Implementation challenges related to multi-typed errors have been discussed on the list quite a bit already. They would obviously need to be addressed if we go in that direction. I don’t want to downplay those. But I do think we need to try to identify the most usable solution for typed errors that we can first and then focus on implementation details. If the design needs to be modified to accommodate implementation at least we will have a better idea of what we are giving up. I am willing to be convinced that a single error type is better than multiple error types but the current proposal does not provide a compelling argument in that direction. It just says “Java checked exceptions”. I know these have been pretty much universally considered a serious design mistake. My impression is that there are quite a few reasons for that. I don’t have any direct experience with Java and am not familiar with the details. If you could elaborate on specifically why you believe allowing multiple error types was a significant contributor to the problem in a manner that indicates that they will be a problem in any language that includes them I would appreciate that. Links would be sufficient if they are focused on answering this particular question. I’m looking forward to your feedback on these thoughts. Thanks, Matthew > On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:29 AM, David Owens II via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This a significantly updated proposal for typed annotations on the `throws` > construct. The previous was closed due to not be complete; I believe I’ve > addressed all of those concerns. > > https://github.com/owensd/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/allow-type-annotations-on-throw.md > > <https://github.com/owensd/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/allow-type-annotations-on-throw.md> > > — > > Allow Type Annotation on Throws > Proposal: SE-NNNN <applewebdata://E64F564F-E0C7-443D-BB19-243FAD102941> > Author(s): David Owens II > <applewebdata://E64F564F-E0C7-443D-BB19-243FAD102941> > Status: Pending Approval for Review > Review manager: TBD > Introduction > The error handling system within Swift today creates an implicitly loose > contract on the API. While this can be desirable in some cases, it’s > certainly not desired in all cases. This proposal looks at modifying how the > error handling mechanism works today by adding the ability to provide a > strong API contract. > > Error Handling State of the Union > This document will use the terminology and the premises defined in the Error > Handling Rationale > <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/ErrorHandlingRationale.rst> > document. > > To very briefly summarize, there are four basic classification of errors: > > Simple Domain Errors > Recoverable Errors > Universal Errors > Logic Failures > Each of these types of errors are handled differently at the call sites. > Today, only the first two are directly handled by Swift error handling > mechanism. The second two are uncatchable in Swift (such as fatalError(), > ObjC exceptions, and force-unwrapping of null optionals). > > Simple Domain Errors > > As stated in Error Handling Rationale > <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/ErrorHandlingRationale.rst> > document, the “Swift way” to handle such errors is to return an Optional<T>. > > func parseInt(value: String) -> Int? {} > The simple fact of the result being Optional.None signifies that the string > could not be parsed and converted into an Int. No other information is > necessary or warranted. > > Recoverable Errors > > In this context, these are errors that need to provide additional information > to the caller. The caller can then decide a course of action that needs to be > taken. This could be any number of things, including, but not limited to, > logging error information, attempting a retry, or potentially invoking a > different code path. All of these errors implement the ErrorType protocol. > > func openFile(filename: String) throws {} > The throws keyword annotates that the function can return additional error > information. The caller must also explicitly make use of this when invoking > the function. > > do { > try openFile("path/to/somewhere") > } > catch {} > Errors are able to propagate if called within another context that can throw, > thus alleviating the annoying “catch and rethrow” behavior: > > func parent() throws { > try openFile("path/to/somwhere") > } > Lastly, functions can be marked to selectively throw errors if they take a > function parameter that throws with the rethrows keyword. The really > interesting part is that it’s only necessary to use try when calling the > function with a throwing closure. > > func openFile(filename: String) throws {} > func say(message: String) {} > > func sample(fn: (_: String) throws -> ()) rethrows { > try fn("hi") > } > > try sample(openFile) > sample(say) > Converting Recoverable Errors to Domain Errors > > Swift also has the try? construct. The notable thing about this construct is > that it allows the caller to turn a “Recoverable Error” into a “Simple Domain > Error”. > > if let result = try? openFile("") {} > ErrorType Implementors > > Errors are implemented using the ErrorType protocol. Since it is a protocol, > new error types can be a class, a struct, or an enum. A type qualified throws > clause would allow code authors to change the way that the catch-clauses need > to be structured. > > Enum Based ErrorType > > When enums are used as the throwing mechanism, a generic catch-clause is > still required as the compiler doesn’t have enough information. This leads to > ambiguous code paths. > > enum Errors: ErrorType { > case OffBy1 > case MutatedValue > } > > func f() throws { throw Errors.OffBy1 } > > do { > try f() > } > catch Errors.OffBy1 { print("increment by 1") } > catch Errors.MutatedValue { fatalError("data corrupted") } > The above code requires a catch {} clause, but it’s ambiguous what that case > should do. There is no right way to handle this error. If the error is > ignored, we’re now in the land of “Logic Errors”; the code path should never > be hit. If we use a fatalError() construct, then we are now in the land of > converting a potential compiler error into a “Universal Error”. > > Both of these are undesirable. > > Struct and Class Based ErrorType > > In the current design, errors that are thrown require a catch-all all the > time. In the proposed design, which will be explained further, a catch-all > would not be required if there was a case-clause that matched the base type. > > class ErrorOne: ErrorType {} > func g() throws { throw ErrorOne() } > > do { > try g() > } > catch is ErrorOne { print("ErrorOne") } > The advantage in these cases are different, these cases do not allow pattern > matching over the error type members (as you can in a switch-statement, for > example). > > The workaround for this functionality is this: > > class ErrorOne: ErrorType { > let value: Int > init(_ value: Int) { self.value = value } > } > > do { > try g() > } > catch { > if let e = error as? ErrorOne { > switch e { > case _ where e.value == 0: print("0") > case _ where e.value == 1: print("1") > default: print("nothing") > } > } > } > This proposal would turn the above into: > > class ErrorOne: ErrorType { > let value: Int > init(_ value: Int) { self.value = value } > } > > do { > try g() > } > catch _ where error.value == 0 { print("0") } > catch _ where error.value == 1 { print("1") } > catch { print("nothing") } > } > No gymnastics to go through, just straight-forward pattern-matching like > you’d expect. > > NOTE: This requires the promotion of the error constant to be allowed through > the entirety of the catch-clauses. > > Overriding > > In the context of types, it’s completely possible to override functions with > the throws annotations. The rules simply follow the rules today: covariance > on the return type is allowed, contravariance is not. > > Generics > > When looking at generics, I cannot come up with a reason why they shouldn’t > just work as normal: > > func gen<SomeError: ErrorType>() throws SomeError {} > The only constraint would be that the specified error type must adhere to the > ErrorType protocol. However, this is no different than today: > > func f<T>(a: T) throws { throw a } > This results in the compiler error: > > Thrown expression type ’T’ does not conform to ‘ErrorType’ > This seems like it should “just work”. > > Design Change Proposal > The design change is simple and straight-forward: allow for the annotation of > the type of error that is being returned as an optional restriction. The > default value would still be ErrorType. > > func specific() throws MyError {} > func nonspecific() throws {} > There is a secondary result of this proposal: the error constant should be > promoted to be allowed for use through-out all of the catch-clauses. > > Impact on Existing Code > > This is a non-breaking change. All existing constructs work today without > change. That said, there are a few places where this change will have an > impact on future usage. > > Function Declarations > > When a function has a throws clause that is attributed with a type, then that > type becomes part of the function signature. This means that these two > functions are not considered to be of the same type: > > func one() throws {} > func two() throws NumberError {} > The function signatures are covariant though, so either one or two can be > assigned to f below: > > let f: () throws -> () > This is completely fine as NumberError still implements the ErrorType > protocol. > > However, in this case: > > let g: () throws NumberError -> () > It would not be valid to assign one to g as the type signature is more > specific. > > throws and rethrows > > Functions currently have the ability to be marked as rethrows. This basically > says that if a closure parameter can throw, then the function will throw too. > > func whatever(fn: () throws -> ()) rethrows {} > The whatever function is up for anything that fn is up for. Keeping in line > with this mentality, the rethrows would exhibit the same behavior: typed > annotations simply apply if present and do not if they are missing. > > func specific(fn: () throws HappyError -> ()) rethrows {} > This all works as expected: > > func f() throws HappyError {} > func g() {} > > try specific(f) > specific(g) > This works for the same covariant reason as the non-qualified throws > implementation works: a non-throwing function is always able to be passed in > for a throwing function. > > The do-catch statement > > There are two rule changes here, but again, it’s non-breaking. > > The first rule change is to promote the error constant that would normally > only be allowed in the catch-all clause (no patterns) to be available > throughout each of the catch clauses. This allows for the error information > to be used in pattern matching, which is especially valuable in the non-enum > case. > > The second change is to allow the error constant to take on a specific type > when all of the throwing functions throw the same specified type. When this > is the case, two things become possible: > > In the enum-type implementation of ErrorType, the catch-clauses can now be > exhaustive. > In the all of the cases, the API of the specific ErrorType becomes available > in the catch-clause without casting the error constant. This greatly > simplifies the pattern-matching process. > In the case that there are heterogenous ErrorType implementations being > returned, the errorconstant simply has the type of ErrorType. > > The try call sites > > There is no change for the try, try?, or try! uses. The only clarification > I’ll add is that try?is still the appropriate way to promote an error from a > “Recoverable Error” to a “Simple Domain Error”. > > Alternate Proposals > There is another common error handling mechanism used in the community today: > Either<L, R>. There are various implementations, but they all basically boil > down to an enum that captures the value or the error information. > > I actually consider my proposal syntactic sugar over this concept. If and > when Swift supports covariant generics, there is not a significant reason I > can see why the underlying implementation could not just be that. > > The advantage is that the proposed (and existing) syntax of throws greatly > increases the readability and understanding that this function actually > possesses the ability to throw errors and they should be handled. > > The other advantage of this syntax is that it doesn’t require a new construct > to force the usage of the return type. > > Further, if functions where to ever gain the ability to be marked as async, > this could now be handled naturally within the compiler as the return type > could a promise-like implementation for those. > > Criticisms > From the earlier threads on the swift-evolution mailing list, there are a few > primary points of contention about this proposal. > > Aren’t we just creating Java checked-exceptions, which we all know are > terrible? > > No. The primary reason is that a function can only return a single > error-type. The other major reason is that the error philosophy is very > different in Swift than in Java. > > Aren’t we creating fragile APIs that can cause breaking changes? > > Potentially, yes. This depends on how the ABI is handled in Swift 3 for > enums. The same problem exists today, although at a lesser extent, for any > API that returns an enum today. > > Chris Lattner mentioned this on the thread: > > The resilience model addresses how the public API from a module can evolve > without breaking clients (either at the source level or ABI level). Notably, > we want the ability to be able to add enum cases to something by default, but > also to allow API authors to opt into more performance/strictness by saying > that a public enum is “fragile” or “closed for evolution”. > So if enums have an attribute that allows API authors to denote the fragility > enums, then this can be handled via that route. > > Another potential fix is that only internal and private scoped functions are > allowed to use the exhaustive-style catch-clauses. For all public APIs, they > would still need the catch-all clauses. > > For APIs that return non-enum based ErrorType implementations, then no, this > does not contribute to the fragility problem. > > Aren’t we creating the need for wrapper errors? > > This is a philosophical debate. I’ll simply state that I believe that simply > re-throwing an error, say some type of IO error, from your API that is not an > IO-based API is design flaw: you are exposing implementation details to > users. This creates a fragile API surface. > > Also, since the type annotation is opt-in, I feel like this is a really minor > argument. If your function is really able to throw errors from various > different API calls, then just stick with the default ErrorType. > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
