My two cents: 1) T() should NOT have anything to do with zero or even “default". (If we need semantic zero, create a protocol with a .zero static func/var) 2) This comes up enough in my programming, and is such a fundamental concept, that T() probably DOES deserve special treatment in the form of a protocol 3) The semantics of that protocol would be “Things which can be created without any additional information beyond their Type” 4) We should keep working on the name
As to whether the protocol needs to be implicit… I am unsure. It may be enough to have the standard library + cocoa types conform where appropriate. On the other hand, I can’t think of any type having T() which would not fit the above semantics… and I would guess around 85~90% of types have it, so it may be worth the trouble to make it implicit in this specific case. I am on the fence, but would probably lean against making it implicit. Thanks, Jon > On Dec 25, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Daniel Leping via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not a matter of probability, but rather of certainty. Please. > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 12:56 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Daniel Leping <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I totally agree Swift is an opinionated language and it's good. > > Also I have been thinking of DefaultConstructable vs reflection for generic > factories and I would prefer to stick to the protocol as it gives compile > time type safety check. With reflection the only way is to through an > exception if there is no init. So again +1 pro to DefaultConstructable. > > Well, you can't argue both ways. Either so many types implement `init()` that > it is unusually onerous to type, in which case you will gain nearly nothing > from compile-time checks, or not so many types implement `init()`, and you > can conform those types to a protocol by yourself :) > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 12:32 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Daniel Leping <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Well, AnyObject exists on Linux with no bridging. Still it's IMPLICITELY > conformed by all classes. > > What you say is just another approach to the same issue and we can argue for > eternity. However, I am very positive with syntactic sugar and this one falls > exactly to sugar category. Make people lifes easier ;) > > Moreover it will never ever do any harm. > > Adding an easy way to get another set of frameworks/approaches/etc (proven by > time, btw) on board sounds very appealing to me. I wish to see Swift a very > diverse ecosystem and this Pitch serves exactly this goal. > > Yes, we should let others chime in on this issue. I will just end by saying > that I've always appreciated how the core team has been very careful and > thoughtful about certain precepts, and how they've stuck to the idea that > Swift is an _opinionated_ language. > > In particular, I appreciate that there's a huge amount of thought put into > semantic meaning. The notion that protocols should carry semantics has been > adhered to very strictly. This is why I think this proposal does do harm, > because it explicitly rejects that very important idea, one that can only be > upheld by people and not compilers. > > (Another semantic distinction observed in Swift is that a boolean value has > semantic meaning and is not just a bit; this is why, for instance, the > FloatingPoint protocols define an `enum FloatingPointSign { case plus, minus > }`--because floating point sign has different _semantics_ from a Bool.) > > Let's just see if it gets any more positive votes. > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 12:10 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Daniel Leping <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I believe you're confusing in-class factory methods with factory pattern. > > Factories can be separate objects and it's a very different situation. > > Fair, but I understand both to fall under the umbrella of "any factory > pattern" and just wanted to point out that at least some of those patterns > seem to be discouraged :) > > In any case, I think it's fair to say that the question "does this type > implement `init()`?" is properly a reflection question and not a protocol > conformance question: the answer provides no semantic guarantees whatsoever > about the value that you get from `init()`, and in your use case you do not > care and simply want to invoke the initializer and return what you get from > it. Now, in a perfect world where the reflection facilities that Swift > provided were essentially free of performance cost, would you object to that > characterization? > > You're certainly right that `AnyObject` has magic. It's rather obvious that > Obj-C bridging is non-negotiable for Swift, and of course a bridged type is > all sorts of different under the hood from a native type. I'm going to take a > wild guess that no other use case would pass that high bar for magic. > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 11:46 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Daniel Leping <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I'm giving a wider range, which is about ANY factory pattern related stuff. > Doesn't look to be narrow to me. > > I thought factory methods were regarded as undesirable in Swift? One of the > stated reasons for failable initializers was: "Failable initializers > eliminate the most common reason for factory methods in Swift... Using the > failable initializer allows greater use of Swift’s uniform construction > syntax, which simplifies the language by eliminating the confusion and > duplication between initializers and factory methods." > <https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=17 > <https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=17>> > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 11:38 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Daniel Leping <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Well, reflection is a huge performance drop. Protocol conformance is way > better. > > I'm not sure how huge it would be in the grand scheme of things; in your > example, you are still evaluating a train of protocol conformances and > casting at runtime. Of course, compiler magic can be fast, but I still don't > see how this is a "very common use case" (as you write) that would justify > magic equivalent to that for Objective-C bridging, which is what you're > saying it should be. If `DefaultConstructible` is useful only when it's magic > and the specific use case is dependency injection/inversion of control, then > we're getting very specialized here. > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 11:26 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Daniel Leping <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I'm not arguing for implicit conformance in general, but I'm telling that > DefaultConstructable is the same basic level as AnyObject, which is conformed > implicitly. > > Shortly, I'm against implicit conformance in general. I'm positive with > "automatic compiler magic" conformance to DefaultConstructable for any object > having a default constructor as it really is a very basic stuff. Otherwise > you will have to add explicit conformance to it in almost every class of > yours (annoying). > > Well, this sounds very different from Adam's proposal, where he proposes > semantic meaning for `init()` that, as he described, means that it cannot > apply to every type that implements `init()`. However, he also just said that > he thinks that all types with `init()` should conform, so I guess I'm > confused which way that is. > > At base, you want a way of knowing if a type has `init()`. That sounds like > reflection to me, not protocol conformance. For the record, I look forward to > the day when AnyObject magic is removed; I assume it is coming eventually. > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 11:14 Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Leping via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Thank you, Adam! > > Wait, are you arguing for implicit conformance or not? > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 at 11:12 Adam Nemecek via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Swift doesn't do implicit conformance. It always has to be declared > explicitly. I'm pretty sure Doug Gregor can explain why better than I > could. > > > I don't think Daniel was arguing for implicit conformance, he's saying that > if it makes sense for an object to have a default constructor, it makes sense > for it to conform to the protocol which I agree with 100%. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
