+1
I think it's a very interesting proposal and here is why:
- It improve readability by expressing intent.
For example the difference between those two function, just by their signature,
is obvious:
func update(_ m: Class) -> Class
and
func update(_ m: Class) => Class
The first one mutates the class passed in argument and returns it (for example,
to allows chaining mutable methods).
And the second one returns a new reference without touching the original class
passed in argument.
Or at least that is how I would expect it to work. (Maybe OP can confirm?)
- Though the compiler helps with captures it would give an additional safeguard
again accidentally capturing the context or creating reference cycles.
For example, it could allow to define pure closures that escape their scope,
without having them be marked @escaping:
func updater(fn: (Int) => Int, initial: Int) -> () -> Int {
var i = initial
return {
i = fn(i)
return i
}
}
instead of
func updater(fn: @escaping (Int) -> Int, initial: Int) -> () -> Int {
var i = initial
return {
i = fn(i)
return i
}
}
This would introduce some pretty interesting scoping rules, I'd be very
interested to hear your opinion on this.
- *something something Stream Fusion*
André
> On 16 Feb 2017, at 19:10, Ross O'Brien via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm in favour of 'pure' functions, because they're a way of reducing the
> repetition of the kind of calculations you might want to perform in
> initialisers to convert argument values into property values.
>
> I don't know why "the function must have a return type" is seen as a
> requirement, though. There may not be many reasons to call a pure function
> without a return type, but requiring a return type, or disallowing inout
> parameters, seems arbitrary to me.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Rien via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> In essence this is about assistance from the compiler that a function marked
>> ‘pure’ is indeed pure?
>> I.e. an error message should be generated when a function marked as ‘pure’
>> is in fact not ‘pure’?
>>
>> If the answer to both questions is ‘yes’ then -not surprising- its a -1 from
>> me.
>>
>> Unless there are other benefits?
>
> This feature already exists
> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/proposals/OptimizerEffects.rst>
> in a certain sense - via the @effects annotation - but is undocumented,
> highly unstable, and does not entail any semantic checking. I think that at
> least indicates a desire, even if it’s only in the lower-level parts of SIL
> now, to have some way to determine the “purity” of a function to perhaps
> guide an inliner or future block fusion pass. Perhaps Andrew Trick can speak
> more about the goals of the annotation and whether it would be ready for
> prime time as it were.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rien
>>
>> Site: http://balancingrock.nl <http://balancingrock.nl/>
>> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com <http://swiftrien.blogspot.com/>
>> Github: http://github.com/Balancingrock <http://github.com/Balancingrock>
>> Project: http://swiftfire.nl <http://swiftfire.nl/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2017, at 18:03, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> # Pure Functions
>>>
>>> * Proposal:
>>> [SE-NNNN](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/NNNN-name.md
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/NNNN-name.md>)
>>> * Author(s): [TJ Usiyan](https://github.com/griotspeak
>>> <https://github.com/griotspeak>)
>>> * Status: **Awaiting review**
>>> * Review manager: TBD
>>>
>>> ## Introduction
>>>
>>> Some functions are, essentially, only meant to be transformations of their
>>> input and–as such–do not and should not reference any variables other than
>>> those passed in. These same functions are not meant to have any effects
>>> other than the aforementioned transformation of input. Currently, Swift
>>> cannot assist the developer and confirm that any given function is one of
>>> these 'pure' functions. To facilitate this, this proposal adds syntax to
>>> signal that a function is 'pure'.
>>>
>>> 'pure', in this context, means:
>>> 1. The function must have a return value
>>> 1. This function can only call other pure functions
>>> 1. This function cannot access/modify global or static variables.
>>>
>>> ## Motivation
>>>
>>> Consider the following example where `_computeNullability(of:)` is meant to
>>> create its output solely based on the provided recognizer.
>>>
>>> ```
>>> class Recognizer {
>>> var nullabilityMemo: Bool?
>>> var isNullable: Bool {
>>> func _computeNullability(of recognizer: Recognizer) -> Bool {…}
>>> if let back = nullabilityMemo {
>>> return back
>>> } else {
>>> let back = _computeNullability(of: self)
>>> nullabilityMemo = back
>>> return back
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> ```
>>> if `_computeNullability(of:)` is recursive at all, there exists a real
>>> potential to accidentally reference `self` in its body and the mistake,
>>> depending on circumstance, can be terribly subtle. Converting
>>> `_computeNullability(of:)` to a `static` function is an option but
>>> obfuscates the fact that it is *only* to be called within `isNullable`.
>>>
>>>
>>> ## Proposed solution
>>>
>>> Given the ability to indicate that `_computeNullability(of:)` is a 'pure'
>>> function, the developer gains assurance from the tooling that it doesn't
>>> reference anything or cause any side effects.
>>>
>>>
>>> ```
>>> class Recognizer {
>>> var nullabilityMemo: Bool?
>>> var isNullable: Bool {
>>> pfunc _computeNullability(of recognizer: Recognizer) -> Bool {…}
>>> if let back = nullabilityMemo {
>>> return back
>>> } else {
>>> let back = _computeNullability(of: self)
>>> nullabilityMemo = back
>>> return back
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> ## Detailed design
>>>
>>> This proposal introduces a new annotation `=>`, which is to be accepted
>>> everywhere `->` currently is. Members created using this kewyord must
>>> follow the rules listed in the introduction.
>>>
>>> ## Impact on existing code
>>>
>>> This is an additive feature unless alternative 2 is chosen and, as such,
>>> should not require an effect on existing code. It could be used to annotate
>>> closures accepted by methods in the standard library such as `map`,
>>> `filter`, and `reduce`. While this would fit well with their typical use,
>>> such a change is not necessarily part of this proposal.
>>>
>>> ## Alternatives considered
>>>
>>> It should be noted that neither of these alternatives can remain consistent
>>> for inline closures.
>>> 1. keyword `pfunc` (pronounciation: pifəŋk) for 'pure' functions.
>>> 2. `proc` keyword for 'impure' functions and 'func' for 'pure' functions.
>>> This would be a massively source breaking change and, as such, is unlikely
>>> to have any feasibility. It is, however, the most clean semantically, in my
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
