As I already said:
To make that feature happen, we need the protocol to be public (regardless if
you can conform to it or not).
Today you can conform to every protocol because in reality they are open today.
If we remove the property requirement from the protocol the client can conform
it to any type and break my API by calling the subscript with a wrong type:
document["something", NSObject()] (assuming extension NSObject :
SubscriptParameterType).
That forces me to create a requirement for the protocol which solves the issue
in my cases, however there might exist other issues, which could be far more
complicated than mine is.
That also implies I have make the enum public.
Which follows by the fact that I’m creating unnecessary copy operations to wrap
every instance that conforms to my protocol into an enum case. From internal
API perspective I also have to unwrap the enum case.
Instead if we had consistent public vs. open behavior, I could make the
protocol public (but-not-open), remove the requirement from it completely,
remove the enum completely and simply cast to Int or String because as the
author of the library I would know that the client won’t be able to conform to
my protocol.
Importing my library will show the client only this:
extension Int : SubscriptParameterType {}
extension String : SubscriptParameterType {}
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 15. Februar 2017 um 17:50:41, Rien (r...@balancingrock.nl) schrieb:
> On 15 Feb 2017, at 17:22, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> A short example where I personally wanted a public-but-not-open protocol:
>
> public protocol SubscriptParameterType {
>
> // This property was needed to prevent the client from breaking
> // the library by conforming to the protocol, but I'd like to
> // keep it invisible for the client, or even better prevent the
> // client from conforming to the protocol.
> var parameter: Document.SubscriptParameter { get }
> }
>
> extension Document {
>
> public enum SubscriptParameter {
>
> case string(String)
> case integer(Int)
> }
> }
>
> extension String : SubscriptParameterType {
>
> public var parameter: Document.SubscriptParameter {
>
> return .string(self)
> }
> }
>
> extension Int : SubscriptParameterType {
>
> public var parameter: Document.SubscriptParameter {
>
> return .integer(self)
> }
> }
>
> // Somewhere inside the `Document` type
> public subscript(firstKey: String, parameters: SubscriptParameterType...) ->
> Value? { … }
>
> That implementation enables more safe queries of my Document type like
> document["key1", intIndexInstance, stringKeyInstance, 10, "key"] rather than
> document["key1/\(intIndexInstance)/\(stringKeyInstance)/10/key”]
I see how that makes queries better.
However what I do not see is how making the protocol “open” would make this
less safe.
(I do not see a reason to make it open either, but that is not the question)
It may be obvious to everyone else, but I don’t see it. Am I suffering from a
brain freeze?.
Regards,
Rien.
> .
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 15. Februar 2017 um 17:03:32, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
> (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
>
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Rien <r...@balancingrock.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Feb 2017, at 16:45, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Rien <r...@balancingrock.nl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Feb 2017, at 16:11, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 5:59 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution
>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15 Feb 2017, at 11:11, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution
>>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our philosophy in general, however, is to default to the behavior
>>>>>>>> which preserves the most flexibility for the library designer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, I thought the philosophy was to preserver type safety. When
>>>>>>> did that change?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, when was the library designer prioritised ahead of the
>>>>>>> application developer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both open and non-open classes are common, but we chose to give
>>>>>>>> non-open classes the `public` keyword because that's the
>>>>>>>> flexibility-preserving option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it isn’t, it’s the flexibility restricting option. The consumer of
>>>>>>> an open class can subclass it. The consumer of a public class cannot
>>>>>>> subclass it. How is the second more flexible than the first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It reduces complexity for the library author by allowing them to opt-out
>>>>>> of the complexity involved in supporting unknown, user-defined
>>>>>> subclasses. It is important to allow libraries to have this flexibility.
>>>>>> They are free to declare a class `open` if they want to allow
>>>>>> subclassing. It’s even possibly for a library to declare all classes
>>>>>> `open` if it wishes to do so. But *requiring* that would reduce the
>>>>>> design space libraries are allowed to explore and / or introduce
>>>>>> fragility by moving the subclass restriction to a comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would a library author want to prohibit subclasses?
>>>>> A library user can always wrap the class and subclass the wrapper.
>>>>
>>>> This is composition, not inheritance. The most important difference is
>>>> that a wrapper cannot override methods, it can only wrap and / or forward
>>>> them. This means that when the superclass calls a method on `self` that
>>>> method *always* invokes its version of that method rather than a subclass
>>>> override. This is a very important difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, however that does not answer the question why would a library
>>> developer want to disallow subclassing?
>>> I do not see a use case for that. I.e. a feature that cannot be implemented
>>> without it. (without “open”)
>>
>> The feature it enables is more robust libraries and the ability for library
>> authors to better reason about their code. You may not find this benefit
>> enough to be worth a language feature, but many of us do.
>>
>>>
>>> Rien.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are cases where subclassing does not make sense. And thus
>>>>> preventing subclasses adds information for those users that don’t RTFM.
>>>>> But that imo is not worth the impact extra complexity places on all other
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rien.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
