PR closed, we’ll come back for Swift 3.1. ;)
-- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 25. Juli 2016 um 23:08:26, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb: Fixed PR: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/468 -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 25. Juli 2016 um 21:35:22, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb: We’ve submitted a PR. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/466 The proposal was refactored completely. Introduction This proposal removes .Type and .Protocol in favor of two generic-style syntaxes and aligns global type(of:) function (SE–0096) to match the changes. Swift-evolution threads: [Revision] [Pitch] Rename T.Type [Review] SE–0126: Refactor Metatypes, repurpose T[dot]self and Mirror [Proposal] Refactor Metatypes, repurpose T[dot]self and Mirror [Discussion] Seal T.Type into Type<T> Motivation Every type T has an instance, accessible through T.self, which represents the type itself. Like all instances in Swift, this “type instance” itself has a type, which is referred to as its “metatype”. The metatype of T is written T.Type. The instance members of the metatype are the same as the static or class members of the type. Metatypes have subtype relationships which reflect the types they represent. For instance, given these types: protocol Proto {} class Base {} class Derived: Base, Proto {} Derived.Type is a subtype of both Base.Type and Proto.Type (and Any.Type). That means that Derived.self can be used anywhere a Derived.Type, Base.Type, Proto.Type, or Any.Type is called for. Unfortunately, this simple picture is complicated by protocols. Proto.self is actually of type Proto.Protocol, not type Proto.Type. This is necessary because the protocol does not, and cannot, conform to itself; it requires conforming types to provide static members, but it doesn’t actually provide those members itself. Proto.Type still exists, but it is the supertype of all types conforming to the protocol. Making this worse, a generic type always uses T.Type to refer to the type of T.self. So when Proto is bound to a generic parameter P, P.Type is the same as Proto.Protocol. This shifting of types is complicated and confusing; we seek to clean up this area. We also believe that, in the long term, the dot syntax will prevent us from implementing certain future enhancements that might be valuable: Moving the implementation of metatypes at least partly into the standard library. Adding members available on all type instances for features like read-write reflection or memory layout information. Conforming metatypes to protocols like Hashable or CustomStringConvertible. Offering straightforward syntaxes for dynamic features like looking up types by name. Proposed solution We abolish .Type and .Protocol in favor of two generic-style syntaxes: Type<T> is the concrete type of T.self. A Type<T> can only ever accept that one specific type, not any of its subtypes. If T is a protocol P, than the only supertype for Type<P> is Subtype<Any>. To be crystal clear here, Type<P> is not a subtype of Subtype<P>. Subtype<T> is the supertype of all Types whose instances are subtypes of T. If T is a class, Subtype<T> would accept a Type for any of its subclasses. If T is a protocol, Subtype<T> would accept a Type for any conforming concrete type. In this new notation, some of our existing standard library functions would have signatures like: func unsafeBitCast<T, U>(_: T, to type: Type<U>) -> U func sizeof<T>(_: Type<T>) -> Int func ==(t0: Subtype<Any>?, t1: Subtype<Any>?) -> Bool func type<T>(of: T) -> Subtype<T> // SE-0096 That last example, type(of:), is rather interesting, because it is actually a magic syntax rather than a function. We propose to align this syntax with Type and Subtype by renaming it to Subtype(of:). We believe this is clearer about both the type and meaning of the operation. let instance: NSObject = NSString() let class: Subtype<NSObject> = Subtype(of: instance) print(class) // => NSString Example: visual metatype relationship Example: generic functions Future Directions We could allow extensions on Type and perhaps on Subtype to add members or conform them to protocols. This could allow us to remove some standard library hacks, like the non-Equatable-related == operators for types. It may be possible to implement parts of Type as a fairly ordinary final class, moving code from the runtime into the standard library. We could offer a Subtype(ofType: Type<T>, named: String) pseudo-initializer which would allow type-safe access to classes by name. We could offer other reflection and dynamic features on Type and Subtype. We could move the MemoryLayout members into Type (presumably prefixed), removing the rather artificial MemoryLayout enum. Along with other generics enhancements, there may be a use for a Subprotocol<T> syntax for any protocol requiring conformance to protocol T. Impact on existing code This is a source-breaking change that can be automated by a migrator. We suggest the following migration process; this can differ from the final migration process implemented by the core team if this proposal will be accepted: Any.Type is migrated to Subtype<Any>. If T.Type is in function parameter, where T is a generic type parameter, then it’s migrated to Type<T>. Every T.Protocol will be replaced with Type<T>. Every T.Type in a dynamic cast will be replaced with Subtype<T>. If static members are called on a metatype instance, then this instance is migrated to Subtype<T>. Return types of functions are migrated to Subtype<T>. Variable declarations is migrated to Subtype<T>. Alternatives considered Other names for Type and Subtype were considered: Type: SpecificType, Metatype or ExactType. Subtype: Supertype, Base, BaseType, ExistentialType or TypeProtocol. Alternatively the pseudo initializer Subtype(of:) could remain as a global function: public func subtype<T>(of instance: T) -> Subtype<T> -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
