On Dec 2, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> wrote:
>>
>> This does not improve clarity of code, it merely serves to obfuscate logic.
>> It is immediately apparent from the APIs being used, the API style, and the
>> static types (in Xcode or through static declarations) that this is all
>> Python stuff.
>
> It may be immediately apparent when the types involved are obviously dynamic,
> such as in this example where Python.import is explicitly used. However, my
> concern is less about the intended use case of dynamic language interop than
> I am that this feature will be generally available to all types in Swift.
>
> This is big change from AnyObject dispatch. It opens up the dynamism to
> types and contexts that are not necessarily obviously using dynamic lookup,
> callable, etc. Maybe this won’t turn out to be a problem in practice but I
> still think it’s a legitimate concern.
Sure, it is a legit concern, but it is also nothing new. This is the standard
concern with type inference.
While there are weird cases, in practice, values do not get magicked out of
no-where. They most commonly are either root values like:
let np = Python.import(“foo”)
let pyInt = PyVal(42)
or they come for parameters:
func f(x : PyVal) {
The place that is potentially surprising is when the type gets buried because
you’re working with some API that returns a [String, PyVal] dictionary or
something:
let x = foo()[“someKey”]
and you don’t realize that PyVal’s are involved. However, if you are actively
writing the code, you have access to code completion and other things that tell
you these types, and if it is important for the clarity of the code, you write
this instead:
let x :PyVal = foo()[“someKey”]
There is nothing specific to this proposal about this issue.
> I’m uncertain what the right answer is. I’m still not really comfortable
> with opening up dynamic lookup to any user-defined type without some way to
> indicate to readers that dynamic lookup is happening in a piece of code.
> Maybe there is a less localized annotation that would indicate dynamic lookup
> is in effect for a larger chunk of code.
You seem to be extremely concerned that people will adopt DynamicMemberLookup
for types where it doesn’t make sense and abuse the feature. I am having a
real problem understanding what your concern is, so I’d really love for you to
explain some theoretical examples of the bad thing that happens: why someone
(non-maliciously) adopts the protocol, what code gets written, and what harm
actually comes from it.
Let me use a made up tale from a parallel universe to illustrate why I don’t
understand your concern. Imagine if Swift didn’t already interoperate with C,
and did not already have IUOs. Someone who cared about C language
interoperability would quickly realize that the ergonomics of importing
everything as strong optionals is a non-starter, jeopardizing the usability of
C interop, and would propose IUOs as a feature.
We’d then have a long and drawn out conversation about the various options on
how to model this, the pros and cons of each, and would settle on IUO as the
least bad design (as an aside, in our universe, when we went through the design
process that led to IUOs, this is exactly what happened, we even considered
syntaxing them as interobangs :-).
At that point, there would be a general uproar because IUOs have high potential
for abuse: Swift is “all about” strong types and safety, which IUOs undermine.
Strong optionals are considered a pain to use by some people and widely
misunderstood (I think they are the biggest challenge in learning Swift in
practice), and so it is a reasonable feature that people could pervasively
adopt IUOs, leading to a much worse world all around.
This made up parallel universe is exactly analogous to what is happening now.
DynamicMemberLookup is no more dangerous and harmful than IUOs are. They will
be one more tool in the toolbox. While it is possible that someone will abuse
it, this will not be widespread. People who are particularly worried will
build a single new rule into their linters (which already flag uses of x!), and
the world will keep revolving.
>> Even the behavior of AnyObject was carefully designed and considered, and
>> were really really good reasons for it returning IUO.
>
> I am not trying to call into question the choices made in the past. Swift
> wouldn’t be the great language with a bright future that it is today without
> an incredibly successful migration of a large user base from Objective-C to
> Swift. This is a huge accomplishment and couldn’t have happened without
> making really good decisions about some really hard tradeoffs.
You miss my point. My point is that AnyObject lookup was carefully considered,
has stood the test of time, and is the *right* answer. Swift 1 would not have
been nearly as successful without it.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
