> On Dec 19, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Kevin Ballard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016, at 06:30 AM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 12:36 AM, Kevin Ballard <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 03:01 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Kevin Ballard <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that code isn't that `dynamic` doesn't work for computed
>>>>> properties. It does; if you mutate the `foo` property, you'll get the KVO
>>>>> notifications. The problem is you have one property that depends on
>>>>> another and you didn't set up the KVO machinery properly using
>>>>> automaticallyNotifiesObservers(forKey:) or
>>>>> automaticallyNotifiesObserversOf<key>() (incidentally in Swift you can
>>>>> write the latter as a `static let`, since that becomes a class method in
>>>>> Obj-C).
>>>>
>>>> You’ll only get the notifications if you mutate ‘foo’ directly. This,
>>>> however, is fairly useless, because if you are watching ‘foo’, you want to
>>>> be notified every time the value changes, not just when someone hits one
>>>> particular accessor. Code relying on observation of ‘foo’ in the example I
>>>> provided would be prone to breaking in mysterious and possibly horrible
>>>> ways.
>>>
>>> No, if you implement keyPathsForValuesAffecting<key>() then you get "foo"
>>> KVO notifications when "bar" is mutated. That's the whole point of that
>>> method, and this is exactly what you have to do in Obj-C as well.
>>
>> Right… the sentence I was quoting was talking about code which uses
>> ‘dynamic’ but *doesn’t* use keyPathsForValuesAffecting<key>. You’ll get
>> notifications if someone calls that one particular accessor, but otherwise
>> you won’t.
>
> You can always write buggy code. If you're using `dynamic` for KVO purposes,
> then not implementing keyPathsForValuesAffecting<Key> in this case is
> strictly a bug. If you're using `dynamic` for something other than KVO, and
> your property won't end up supporting KVO properly by default, then you
> should document it as such, given that the natural assumption for a `dynamic`
> property is that it supports KVO.
If you’re using ‘dynamic’ for KVO purposes, you should document it as such. If
you are using it for something else, not implementing KVO is not in any way a
bug. Relying on KVO for properties that are not documented to be compliant,
though, *is.*
Documentation is the only reliable way to check for KVO conformance. I have a
class with 28 KVO-compliant methods on it. Of those, exactly 4 are marked as
‘dynamic’. The presence of the ‘dynamic’ keyword is not a good thing to rely on
for this (and the lack of a good built-in mechanism is part of why, IMO, we
need something new to replace KVO).
>>>>> So yes, `dynamic` by itself doesn't mean that the property supports KVO.
>>>>> But there are very few reasons to use `dynamic` outside of supporting
>>>>> KVO, so it's a pretty good signal that the property does support it. And
>>>>> conversely, not having `dynamic` doesn't mean that it doesn't support
>>>>> KVO, though if it does have manual KVO support using
>>>>> will/didChangeValue(forKey:) then it should be documented as such.
>>>> Use of the ‘dynamic’ keyword enables all manner of runtime hackery which
>>>> someone may be employing. The trick to automatically add KVO conformance
>>>> to accessors is probably the most common, but it’s hardly the only one.
>>>> One also might want to declare things ‘dynamic’ when working with
>>>> Objective-C frameworks not under one’s control which might assume the
>>>> ability to do metaprogramming on your classes
>>>
>>> That is exceedingly rare. I can't even remember the last time I used such a
>>> thing.
>>
>> You used such a thing the last time you used KVO. ;-)
>
> We were talking about metaprogramming other than KVO.
We were talking about libraries and/or frameworks that have the ability to do
metaprogramming, which when you come down to it is all KVO is. KVO is the most
popular of these, but keep in mind that all Objective-C code written before
2014 is assuming that *every* method is *always* going to be dynamically
dispatched, and as a result may act on those assumptions. For example, consider
the following contrived example:
import Foundation
class Foo: NSObject {
@objc func sayHello() {
print("Hello World")
}
}
class Bar: NSObject {
@objc func doSomething(with foo: Foo)
foo.sayHello()
}
}
let foo = Foo()
let bar = Bar()
SomeLegacyObjectiveCAPI().doSomething(with: foo, andSendItBackTo: bar,
selector: #selector(Bar.doSomething(with:)))
Is this safe? On the surface, it looks like it. However, for all we know, the
Objective-C API may send us back an NSProxy pretending to be our Foo object,
rather than the Foo object itself. This is perfectly legal by Objective-C
conventions, the proxy will look like a Foo due to isKindOfClass: being
forwarded, and if we try to statically access its “sayHello()” method on it,
we’ll crash. Therefore, it would be a best practice in this situation to
declare sayHello() as dynamic to avoid this potential issue. This use of
‘dynamic’ would not have anything to do with KVO, however, and if someone
assumed it did, that would be their bug.
And you never know, someone might have just used ‘dynamic’ for some reason
totally unrelated to metaprogramming; say, someone writes a callback method
that will only ever be accessed by the Objective-C runtime, and declares it
‘dynamic’ to formalize that. Or maybe someone just uses ‘dynamic’ in place of
‘@objc’ because they don’t like the ugly @ symbol. Or maybe the code was
written by someone new to Swift who got burned in the past by some method not
being seen by the Objective-C runtime for target-action or KVO or whatever and
now just reflexively puts ‘dynamic’ on everything because that’s what fixed it
that one time and they don’t really understand why. When you’re dealing with
other people’s code, you just don’t really know, unless you know the author or
can read their mind.
>>>> Long story short, ‘dynamic’ does not guarantee KVO conformance in any way,
>>>> shape, or form.
>>>
>>> And declaring that your property returns a String doesn't guarantee that it
>>> actually does either. You can always write broken code. But `dynamic` is
>>> required for automatic KVO conformance, and it's extremely rare to have a
>>> reason to use `dynamic` outside of KVO, so it's a really really strong
>>> signal that the property supports KVO. If you're using `dynamic` on a
>>> property but don't support KVO correctly, as you showed in your code
>>> example, that's a bug with your code.
>>
>> Correlation does not imply causation. Dynamic properties often support KVO,
>> but the developer may have just declared it dynamic in order to use
>> Objective-C’s dynamism to solve some other problem. You don’t know, and thus
>> I certainly wouldn’t call it a bug in the code.
>
> If a particular language feature is used 99.9% of the time to provide some
> particular functionality, then people will assume the presence of that
> language feature implies that functionality. I don't think it's incorrect to
> assume that the overwhelming majority of uses of `dynamic` are for KVO
> conformance.
In Objective-C, a method that returns an NSArray, the great majority of the
time, is returning an immutable array. However, the contract does not promise
this; the array could easily, and legally, actually be an NSMutableArray
internally. So if you’re writing Objective-C code and using a method that
returns an array, even though that array *probably* won’t be mutated after you
get it, it’s still a best practice to store the array in a @property declared
(copy) rather than (strong), to ensure that it won’t be mutated behind our
backs. It doesn’t matter if that would only happen 0.1% of the time (a figure I
dispute in the case of ‘dynamic', but this is beside the point), because we’re
all familiar with Murphy’s Law: if it can go wrong, it will. Making assumptions
based on “well, this probably won’t happen” is just heuristics, which isn’t a
good idea when things need to be rock solid.
Charles
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
