On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:40 AM David Sweeris via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> (Now with more mailing lists in the "to" field!)
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Hi, everyone. Now that Swift 5 is starting up, I'd like to circle back to
> an issue that's been around for a while: the source compatibility of enums.
> Today, it's an error to switch over an enum without handling all the cases,
> but this breaks down in a number of ways:
> - A C enum may have "private cases" that aren't defined inside the
> original enum declaration, and there's no way to detect these in a switch
> without dropping down to the rawValue.
> - For the same reason, the compiler-synthesized 'init(rawValue:)' on an
> imported enum never produces 'nil', because who knows how anyone's using C
> enums anyway?
> - Adding a new case to a *Swift* enum in a library breaks any client code
> that was trying to switch over it.
> (This list might sound familiar, and that's because it's from a message of
> mine on a thread started by Matthew Johnson back in February called
> "[Pitch] consistent public access modifiers". Most of the rest of this
> email is going to go the same way, because we still need to make progress
> here.)
> At the same time, we really like our exhaustive switches, especially over
> enums we define ourselves. And there's a performance side to this whole
> thing too; if all cases of an enum are known, it can be passed around much
> more efficiently than if it might suddenly grow a new case containing a
> struct with 5000 Strings in it.
> *Behavior*
> I think there's certain behavior that is probably not *terribly*
>  controversial:
> - When enums are imported from Apple frameworks, they should always
> require a default case, except for a few exceptions like NSRectEdge. (It's
> Apple's job to handle this and get it right, but if we get it wrong with an
> imported enum there's still the workaround of dropping down to the raw
> value.)
> - When I define Swift enums in the current framework, there's obviously no
> compatibility issues; we should allow exhaustive switches.
> Everything else falls somewhere in the middle, both for enums defined in
> Objective-C:
> - If I define an Objective-C enum in the current framework, should it
> allow exhaustive switching, because there are no compatibility issues, or
> not, because there could still be private cases defined in a .m file?
> - If there's an Objective-C enum in *another* framework (that I built
> locally with Xcode, Carthage, CocoaPods, SwiftPM, etc.), should it allow
> exhaustive switching, because there are no *binary* compatibility issues,
> or not, because there may be *source* compatibility issues? We'd really
> like adding a new enum case to *not* be a breaking change even at the
> source level.
> - If there's an Objective-C enum coming in through a bridging header,
> should it allow exhaustive switching, because I might have defined it
> myself, or not, because it might be non-modular content I've used the
> bridging header to import?
> And in Swift:
> - If there's a Swift enum in another framework I built locally, should it
> allow exhaustive switching, because there are no binary compatibility
> issues, or not, because there may be source compatibility issues? Again,
> we'd really like adding a new enum case to *not* be a breaking change
> even at the source level.
> Let's now flip this to the other side of the equation. I've been talking
> about us disallowing exhaustive switching, i.e. "if the enum might grow new
> cases you must have a 'default' in a switch". In previous (in-person)
> discussions about this feature, it's been pointed out that the code in an
> otherwise-fully-covered switch is, by definition, unreachable, and
> therefore untestable. This also isn't a desirable situation to be in, but
> it's mitigated somewhat by the fact that there probably aren't many
> framework enums you should exhaustively switch over anyway. (Think about
> Apple's frameworks again.) I don't have a great answer, though.
> For people who like exhaustive switches, we thought about adding a new
> kind of 'default'—let's call it 'unknownCase' just to be able to talk about
> it. This lets you get warnings when you update to a new SDK, but is even
> more likely to be untested code. We didn't think this was worth the
> complexity.
> *Terminology*
> The "Library Evolution
> <http://jrose-apple.github.io/swift-library-evolution/>" doc (mostly
> written by me) originally called these "open" and "closed" enums ("requires
> a default" and "allows exhaustive switching", respectively), but this
> predated the use of 'open' to describe classes and class members. Matthew's
> original thread did suggest using 'open' for enums as well, but I argued
> against that, for a few reasons:
> - For classes, "open" and "non-open" restrict what the *client* can do.
> For enums, it's more about providing the client with additional
> guarantees—and "non-open" is the one with more guarantees.
> - The "safe" default is backwards: a merely-public class can be made
> 'open', while an 'open' class cannot be made non-open. Conversely, an
> "open" enum can be made "closed" (making default cases unnecessary), but a
> "closed" enum cannot be made "open".
> That said, Clang now has an 'enum_extensibility' attribute that does take
> 'open' or 'closed' as an argument.
> On Matthew's thread, a few other possible names came up, though mostly
> only for the "closed" case:
> - 'final': has the right meaning abstractly, but again it behaves
> differently than 'final' on a class, which is a restriction on code
> elsewhere in the same module.
> - 'locked': reasonable, but not a standard term, and could get confused
> with the concurrency concept
> - 'exhaustive': matches how we've been explaining it (with an "exhaustive
> switch"), but it's not exactly the *enum* that's exhaustive, and it's a
> long keyword to actually write in source.
> - 'extensible': matches the Clang attribute, but also long
> I don't have better names than "open" and "closed", so I'll continue using
> them below even though I avoided them above. But I would *really like to
> find some*.
> *Proposal*
> Just to have something to work off of, I propose the following:
> 1. All enums (NS_ENUMs) imported from Objective-C are "open" unless they
> are declared "non-open" in some way (likely using the enum_extensibility
> attribute mentioned above).
> 2. All public Swift enums in modules compiled "with resilience" (still to
> be designed) have the option to be either "open" or "closed". This only
> applies to libraries not distributed with an app, where binary
> compatibility is a concern.
> 3. All public Swift enums in modules compiled from source have the option
> to be either "open" or "closed".
> 4. In Swift 5 mode, a public enum should be *required* to declare if it
> is "open" or "closed", so that it's a conscious decision on the part of the
> library author. (I'm assuming we'll have a "Swift 4 compatibility mode"
> next year that would leave unannotated enums as "closed".)
> 5. None of this affects non-public enums.
> (4) is the controversial one, I expect. "Open" enums are by far the common
> case in Apple's frameworks, but that may be less true in Swift.
> *Why now?*
> Source compatibility was a big issue in Swift 4, and will continue to be
> an important requirement going into Swift 5. But this also has an impact on
> the ABI: if an enum is "closed", it can be accessed more efficiently by a
> client. We don't *have* to do this before ABI stability—we could access
> all enums the slow way if the library cares about binary compatibility, and
> add another attribute for this distinction later—but it would be nice™ (an
> easy model for developers to understand) if "open" vs. "closed" was also
> the primary distinction between "indirect access" vs. "direct access".
> I've written quite enough at this point. Looking forward to feedback!
> How does this compare with the other idea (I can't remember who posted it)
> of allowing enum "subtyping"?
> enum Foo {
>   case one
>   case two
> }
> enum Bar : Foo {
>   // implicitly has Foo's cases, too
>   case three
> }
> That way, if you switch over a `Foo`, you'll only ever have two cases to
> worry about. Code that needs to handle all three cases would need to switch
> over a `Bar`, but could also switch over a `Foo` since its cases are a
> subset of Bar's cases.

It's worth noting here that Foo is a subtype of Bar, not the other way
around (which is implied by the syntax), because while it is the case that
every instance of Foo is also a Bar, not every instance of Bar is also a

So, the interesting thing about enums is that if you allow this kind of
syntax, it means they can retroactively gain *supertypes*; I don't know
enough about type theory to know whether that would be a problem or not.
(Maybe it's not much different than retroactive protocol conformance?)

Something like this definitely feels useful for cleanly migrating users
away from an old enum to a new one, but we may still struggle with some of
the classic covariance problems:

enum Foo {
  case one
  case two
// I'm not recommending this syntax, just writing it differently to avoid
the subtyping confusion stemming from overloading the colon
enum NewFoo including Foo {
  case three

fooConsumer(_ foo: Foo) can be changed to fooConsumer(_ foo: NewFoo)
without breaking clients because the clients would be passing Foos, and any
Foo is also a NewFoo.
fooProducer() -> Foo *cannot* be changed to fooProducer() -> NewFoo without
breaking clients because the client is expecting a Foo, but not all NewFoos
are Foos.

> I don't know how libraries would deal with adding cases... maybe have
> different function signatures based on the version setting?
> - Dave Sweeris
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to