Dave and I have pondered this before, and considered that one possible
(drastic) solution is to ban classes from implementing protocols with mutating
members, on the grounds that it’s very hard to write an algorithm that’s
correct for both.
func removing(_ element: Element) -> Self {
var result = self // not necessarily a copy…
result.remove(element)
return result // not necessarily an independent value
}
func zapBadElements<C: RangeReplaceableCollection where C.Generator.Element ==
Int>(_ nums: inout C) {
// requires inout on ‘nums’ even when it’s a class
for i in nums.indices {
if nums[i] < 0 {
nums.removeAtIndex(i)
}
}
// …because of this.
if nums.lazy.filter { $0 == 0 }.count > 5 {
nums = C()
}
}
var refCollection: SharedArrayOfSomeKind<Int> = …
// either the variable ‘refCollection’ or the instance of
‘SharedArrayOfSomeKind’ might be mutated…or both!
zapBadElements(&refCollection)
There are of course ways to safely use a protocol with mutating requirements
with classes, namely if you only use them for mutation (i.e. they’re only
called from ‘mutating’ members or on ‘inout’ parameters) and never rely on
value copying (no assignment, no returning). Most simple wrappers around
mutating members would fall into this category.
We didn’t really develop the idea very far yet because there’s been more
pressing things to worry about. I’m bringing it up here because it’s an
important idea that shouldn’t get lost.
---
In lieu of this, I and a few others brought up the “incorrect” behavior of
reassigning ‘self’ in a protocol extension when the model type is a class, and
got shot down. I don’t have those discussions on hand at the moment, but I
remember we deliberately decided to leave protocol extensions the way they
were, allowing them to reassign class references. I think it’s because it means
things like zapBadElements are more likely to work correctly^W as expected―if
you don’t have any other references at the time you do the mutation, it can
work. But yeah, I’m uncomfortable with the situation we’re in right now.
Jordan
> On May 3, 2016, at 13:09, James Froggatt via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response, I agree this is currently the best solution.
> Unfortunately, it's not just as simple as just implementing each method,
> since without being able to call super, I have to fully reimplement the
> original behaviour, which at best seems like bad practice, and would break in
> future versions of Swift, and at worst could lead to hard-to-detect bugs
> right now.
>
> To recap for anyone reading, protocol extensions currently apply mutating
> methods unmodified to reference types, as I found trying to make a
> reference-type collection. This results in the compiler disallowing ‘let’
> when calling these functions, and allows methods to reassign the reference
> ‘self’ to a new object. The best solution is to manually implement each
> method, removing the mutating modifier, yet this workaround doesn't extend to
> generic code.
>
> To fix this behaviour, we would need to distinguish between ‘true’ mutating
> functions, which reassign self, and ‘partially’ mutating functions, for use
> in generics and protocol extensions, which can reassign properties only.
> Is there any support for making this change? Or are there any simpler
> solutions?
>
> I did submit a bug report, but I'm pretty sure a decent fix is not possible
> without some evolution of the language regarding the mutating keyword, so I'm
> trying to bring this up here in hope of us getting an actual solution. I've
> changed the title to what I hope is something that better reflects the
> problem; this thread was originally titled ‘[swift-evolution] [Bug?]
> Reference types and mutating methods’.
>
>
> PS: I have noticed another side-effect of calling mutating functions on my
> reference-type collection: it seems to trigger didChange on properties, even
> when, upon comparing the new and old objects, the reference isn't being
> changed. I haven't done much experimentation with this behaviour; this may be
> an unexpected side-effect of an extension method assigning to self, but it
> feels like it could be undefined behaviour.
>
> From James F
>
> On 30 Apr 2016, at 16:38, T.J. Usiyan <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> The problem here seems to be with using the default implementation provided.
>> If you override `append` in ObservedArray, the compiler allows it. That
>> seems 'safe' but odd at first. I wouldn't *want* to implement every mutating
>> method, but that is the current solution. I haven't puzzled out the
>> reasoning behind this myself.
>>
>>
>> ``` swift
>> class ObservedArray<T> : ArrayLiteralConvertible {
>> var value: [T]
>> init(value: [T]) {
>> self.value = value
>> }
>> required init() {
>> self.value = []
>> }
>>
>> required convenience init(arrayLiteral elements: T...) {
>> self.init(elements)
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> extension ObservedArray {
>> typealias Index = Int
>>
>> var startIndex: Index {
>> return value.startIndex
>> }
>>
>> var endIndex: Index {
>> return value.endIndex
>> }
>>
>> subscript(position: Index) -> T {
>> return value[position]
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> extension ObservedArray : RangeReplaceableCollectionType {
>> typealias Generator = IndexingGenerator<[T]>
>>
>> func generate() -> Generator {
>> return value.generate()
>> }
>> }
>>
>> extension ObservedArray {
>> func replaceRange<C : CollectionType where C.Generator.Element ==
>> Generator.Element>(subRange: Range<Index>, with newElements: C) {
>> value.replaceRange(subRange, with: newElements)
>> }
>>
>> func append(newElement: T) { // <- adding this makes it work
>> value.append(newElement)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> let array: ObservedArray<String> = []
>> array.append("1")
>>
>>
>> ```
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:52 AM, James Froggatt via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> I don't believe this has been addressed, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> --My Situation--
>> I've recently been working on an observable collection type. Because each
>> stores ‘subscriptions’ to changes that occur, it made sense to me that this
>> should be a reference type, so subscriptions can't be copied with the values
>> themselves.
>>
>> I have made this class conform to RangeReplaceableCollectionType, providing
>> it with all the standard collection functions. I do the following:
>>
>> let array: ObservedArray<String> = []
>> array.append("1") //Error: Cannot use mutating member on immutable value:
>> ‘array’ is a ‘let’ constant
>>
>> I have to make the reference immutable just to use my new collection type?
>> This is a bit of a deal-breaker.
>>
>> --The Problem--
>> Mutating methods allow ‘self’ to be reassigned, which is just another way to
>> mutate a value type. However, reassigning ‘self’ has a special meaning to
>> reference types, which is presumably the reason they are disallowed in
>> classes.
>>
>> However, classes can conform to protocols with mutating methods, leading to
>> the compiler disallowing calls to mutating methods for ‘let’ values of type
>> ‘protocol<MutatingProtocol, AnyObject>’, which can be an annoyance in
>> generic code. In addition, classes can inherit mutating methods from
>> protocol extensions, leading to the behaviour I describe above.
>>
>> Is this intentional behaviour? Am I going about this in the wrong way? Or is
>> this really an omission in the language?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
