> On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Ted Kremenek <kreme...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> The review of "SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization" begins now
> and runs through January 5, 2018.
>
> The proposal is available here:
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md
> When reviewing a proposal, here are some questions to consider:
>
> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>
I am hugely supportive of the features that these attributes enable, but I
think that the spelling of this is absolutely wrong, and I’m disappointed that
the extensive discussion we’ve had for months about this didn’t make it into
(at least) the alternatives considered section. Here are my concerns:
Availability Ranges
Both of these attributes will (perhaps not for Swift 5 given the fact that
these will be new then, but certainly in 5.1 or 6) need to be qualified by
deployment modifiers. We’ll need the ability to specify not just that a
declaration is inlinable or abipublic, but in *which versions* of the binary
package (that they are defined in) have this property.
For example, while perhaps it will be common for a decl to be “born inlinable”
and just need the form of attribute as specified here, it is just as clear that
this is not the *only* model we need. It is entirely reasonable (and will be
important in the future) to say that something “became ABI public in iOS14,
became abiPublic in iOS 15, and became inlinable in iOS16”. The use of this
will be relatively rare, but it is important for the model to support this in
time.
Because of this, if we accept the spelling as proposed in this proposal, these
attributes will need to be generalized to have an availability range, e.g.:
@abipublic(iOS 15, *)
The concern is that this proposal opens the door to have a family of attributes
each of which have availability information on them, and this “family” of
attributes will have nothing tying them together into a unified framework.
Pollution of the Attribute Namespace
Furthermore, these two attributes are the tip of the iceberg, and the core team
has spent a lot of time recently discussing the fact there are potentially
going to be about a dozen attributes similar to these (fixed_contents,
global_var_is_directly_addressible, …) that will only be required for binary
frameworks. It is possible that @inlinable will be prominent enough to be a
global attribute (I personally am not sure if it will be commonly used or not,
it depends a lot on how widely used binary frameworks are). That said, it is
clear @abiPublic will not be commonly used, and many attributes that follow
these will be even more obscure.
This is bad for three reasons:
1) we’re polluting the general attribute namespace with obscure things.
Pollution of the attribute namespace may have a marginal impact today, but will
start to matter if/when we ever get user defined attributes.
2) The other reason is that this provides no general framework to tie together
these things that affect binary frameworks into a unified framework.
3) Furthermore, I don’t like attributes being a dumping ground for weird
performance hacks required by binary frameworks. It is a practical necessity
that we support these because they are extremely important for narrow cases,
but we don’t need to put them into a syntactically prominent spot in the
grammar.
The name “ABI”
A minor point, but the specific name “abiPublic” is not great in my opinion,
because “ABI” is a term of art for compiler hackers. Most users have no idea
what ABI means, and those who think they do often don’t. Very few people
really understand what “stable ABI” means for example.
It would be better to go with something like “apiPublic” or “symbolPublic” or
“linkableButNotAccessible” or something else long. This will not be commonly
used in user code, so being long and descriptive is a good thing.
Counterproposal:
There is a simple way to address the two concerns above: we already have a
framework for handling API evolution with binary frameworks, the @available
attribute. We can spell these “attributes” as:
@available(inlinable) // this symbol has been inlinable since it was
introduced
which generalizes properly when we add version ranges:
@available(iOS 14, *) // this was introduced in iOS 14
@available(linkerSymbol: iOS 15, *) // this decl’s symbol became
“abiPublic" in iOS 15
@available(inlinable: iOS 16, *) // this decl became inlinable in iOS
16
public func foo() {… }
and allows us to bury weird hacks like “abiPublic” and the other even more
obscure things that are coming outside of the global attribute namespace:
@available(global_var_is_directly_accessible: iOS 15, *)
public var myDispatchOnceToken : ...
Given this unified framework for handling ABI evolution, we can then separately
discuss which ones of these proposals are common and important enough to sugar
into a top level attribute. For example, given the general model for inlinable
above, we could then (possibly as a later proposal) introduce:
@inlinable // this symbol has been inlinable since it was introduced
public func foo()
as sugar for:
@available(inlinable)
public func foo()
… which means that the sugar forms can be separately debated, and that the
sugar forms don’t have to permit the full complexity of the general case (the
availability list). It still isn’t clear to me whether @inlinable meets the
bar to be a global attribute, I can see both sides of that argument, and it
seems valuable to be able to separate the engineering work to introduce the
feature from the bikeshed discussion about whether it should be sugared or not.
In short, respectfully request that you at least add this approach to the
"alternatives considered” section. I also suggest you strongly consider
pursuing this direction. It solves the same problem as your proposal but:
- scales better as we add more “attributes" in the future - which will be of
increasingly narrow applicability.
- provides a unifying model for all of the binary framework hints
- puts all the availability markup into the feature we already have for this.
- provides a better naming framework for things like abiPublic, because you can
say "@available(linkerSymbol)” to say that this is making the linker symbol
available from the binary framework.
-Chris
>
> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
> Swift?
>
> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>
> If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do
> you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>
> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or
> an in-depth study?
>
> Thanks,
> Ted Kremenek
> Review Manager
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution-announce mailing list
> swift-evolution-annou...@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution-announce
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
