Regards (From mobile) On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:34 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Károly Lőrentey <kar...@lorentey.hu> wrote: >>> On 2016-07-18, at 19:05, John McCall via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> The basic effect of Károly's counter-proposal is that every public member >>> of an open class has to be marked either "open" or "final". That's >>> boilerplate. >> >> My primary point was that there is no need for a middle ground between >> "final" and "open" members. >> >> I want to push my primary point a little more, so let’s forget my secondary >> suggestion to have no default, and let’s set an implicit choice. >> >> I'd still argue for having no middle ground. “final” seems to be a good >> default; its effect matches the proposal. >> >>> I think you and Károly are evaluating the addition of non-open methods as >>> if they were being added primarily to increase expressive capabilities. >>> They do marginally increase expressiveness, but I agree that it's not a >>> common situation to explicitly want. However, neither are non-open >>> classes. >> >> It's more of an Occam's razor thing. The proposal prevents people from >> unintentionally exposing a wider API area than they intended. I agree with >> this wholeheartedly. I just don't believe that we need to add a brand new >> access level for members to achieve this goal. >> >> Having an implicit "sealed" class level is a much easier sell for me, >> because it is sometimes desirable to expose a sealed class hierarchy, but >> Swift doesn't currently support it well -- AFAICT not as an intentional >> choice, but rather as an unfortunate side-effect of the initializer rules. >> You could've simply chosen to propose making "final" the default for public >> classes. Kotlin's troubles mostly wouldn't apply as long as internal classes >> would remain open, so I'd have supported that too. But rather than this, the >> proposal is built on top a nice solution to the sealed class problem. >> Solving it is obviously a good idea, and it is closely related to the goal >> of the proposal. >> >> There is no such language problem in Swift 2 with sealed methods: an >> internal open member is sealed by virtue of not being externally visible. >> It’s straightforward to add a public final trampoline in the rare case when >> a sealed member should also be made externally callable. I believe the >> proposal works perfectly well without adding a language feature for this >> uncommon usecase. >> >>> The goal here is not to create new expressive power, it's to establish a >>> comprehensible intermediate position that's acceptable as a default so that >>> publicizing an API doesn't require so much annotation and bookkeeping. >>> Otherwise, programmers are forced to immediately decide between >>> over-promising (by making the method publicly overridable) or breaking >>> their own code (if they have internal overrides). >> >> But making API public should never be done in a hurry. It includes making >> the API presentable, which involves some amount of refactoring. Granted, if >> an API has internally overridden methods that the author wants to make >> public but sealed, then they'd need to refactor these methods. But given how >> rare this is, and how easy it is to implement the trampoline pattern, is >> such a trivial refactoring step really too much to ask? (There are a number >> of much more complicated refactorings involved in making an API public; >> e.g., it is often the case that a method I want to make public has a >> parameter or return value with a type that I wish to keep internal.) > > I agree that having the concept of "visible publicly but only arbitrary > modifiable internally" adds complexity to the language. However, once we've > got non-open public classes — and as I understand it, you still support those > — that complexity already exists. You're not really eliminating anything by > preventing this from being applied to methods. > > Also, we're going to be proposing a lot of new things for library-resilience > over the next six months or so that will add appreciable but unavoidable > complexity to the language around module boundaries. Module boundaries have > a lot of special significance in the language design because Swift takes the > stable binary interface problem much more seriously than, I think, almost any > other language can claim to. Considering how most people in this list likely do not understand where there is an issue and the fact that most of the planet's servers have done reasonably until today with only a pre9-java solution, i wonder who these enhancements are meant for? Binary sharing in the apple world is very limited outside apple, so at this point I question if these will be for users or something else we will have to overcome. >> I believe that apart from this one little wrinkle, the behavior that SE-0117 >> proposes can be fully implemented by allowing just "final", "open" and >> "dynamic" members, with "final" being the default for public members of open >> classes, and "open" being the default for all other members (including >> non-open classes). >> >> Is smoothing out that wrinkle worth introducing a whole new default level of >> member overridability? I think this is worth some more discussion. >> >> Note that if we end up with "final” members by default and it turns out to >> be the wrong choice, changing the default to sealed would not be a >> source-breaking change. >> >>> Furthermore, I don't agree that non-open methods add significant new >>> complexity. For clients of a library, a non-open method is final; there >>> are no semantically-detectable differences (ignoring covariant overrides). >>> Within a library, non-open methods remove the need for some unnecessary >>> bookkeeping. And just on a conceptual level, the analogy to class behavior >>> is quite simple. >> >> This reminds me: Whether or not we allow the sealed level on methods, I >> suggest we provide a contextual keyword to (optionally) spell it. A "sealed" >> keyword is the obvious choice. This would encourage people to use common >> terminology, and makes it easier to use search engines to find an >> explanation of the concept. Autogenerated API summaries should add the >> "sealed" keyword. > > Yes, we should probably add some way to spell it. "sealed" does not feel > like a natural opposite to "open", however, and I think we're quite taken > with "open". I would suggest "nonopen" or "closed". > > John. > >> >> We never have to spell "internal", but I think it is still very useful that >> it exists. >> >> -- >> Károly >> @lorentey > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
