I think this is a good summary.  

I agree that we need to handle unexpected cases from changes to a binary 
somehow.  The main issue is that, when forcing developers to use ‘default’ to 
do it, it also brings along unwanted semantics that prevent warnings in the 
very common use case of a 3rd party library being updated.  The proposal is 
close to what we want, but unacceptable in it’s current form IMHO.

I see two possible solutions to this:

1) A new ‘unexpected:’ construct in switches, which handle cases not known at 
compile time.  This is my favorite option because I think it gives us the most 
freedom to evolve the language in the future.  For example, if we end up adding 
subclassable enums in Swift 12 or something, we will already have a mechanism 
in place to deal with the issues that arise.

2) We version the annotation, and then require any additions to map themselves 
back an existing case for code which doesn’t know about the new case.

I also feel like framing the issue as being about exhaustiveness of enums is 
confusing. It really doesn’t have to be about exhaustiveness at all. I would 
much prefer an annotation like @frozen which can be used for structs as well. 
With @exhaustive you have to start talking about module boundaries, because all 
enums are already exhaustive within the module boundary.  You may find people 
adding @exhaustive for the wrong reasons (i.e. they want their local enum to be 
exhaustive).  Framing the issue as something where we promise not to change the 
API is a much easier mental model to explain to people.


> On Jan 1, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> I agree that we need a solution to the problem described.  I also agree that 
>> non-exhaustive is most in keeping with the overall design of Swift at module 
>> boundaries.  However, I believe this proposal should be modified before 
>> being accepted
> Thanks for writing this up - you’ve explained a common concern in an 
> interesting way:
>> This is likely to be a relatively rare need mostly encountered by 3rd party 
>> libraries but it will happen.  When it does happen it would be really 
>> unfortunate to be forced to use a `default` clause rather than something 
>> like a `future` clause which will produce an error when compiled against an 
>> SDK where the enum includes cases that are not covered.  I can imagine cases 
>> where this catch-all case would need to do something other than abort the 
>> program so I do not like the `switch!` suggestion that has been discussed.  
>> The programmer should still be responsible for determining the behavior of 
>> unknown cases.
> ..
>> While library authors have a legitimate need to reserve the right to 
>> introduce new cases for some enums this need can be met without taking away 
>> a useful tool for generating static compiler errors when code does not align 
>> with intent (in this case, the intent being to cover all known cases).  
>> Switch statements working with these kinds of enums should be required to 
>> cover unknown cases but should be able to do so while still being statically 
>> checked with regards to known cases.  
> I think that this could be the crux of some major confusion, the root of 
> which is the difference between source packages and binary packages that are 
> updated outside your control (e.g. the OS, or a dynamic library that is 
> updated independently of your app like a 3rd party plugin).  Consider:
> 1) When dealing with independently updated binary packages, your code *has* 
> to implement some behavior for unexpected cases if the enum is 
> non-exhaustive.  It isn’t acceptable to not handle that case, and it isn’t 
> acceptable to abort because then your app will start crashing when a new OS 
> comes out. You have to build some sort of fallback into your app.
> 2) When dealing with a source package that contributes to your app (e.g. 
> through SwiftPM), *YOU* control when you update that package, and therefore 
> it is entirely reasonable to exhaustively handle enums even if that package 
> owner didn’t “intend” for them to be exhaustive.  When *you* chose to update 
> the package, you get the “unhandled case” error, and you have maximal 
> “knowability” about the package’s behavior.
> It seems that your concern stems from the fact that the feature as proposed 
> is aligned around module boundaries, and therefore overly punishes source 
> packages like #2.  I hope you agree that in case #1, that the feature as 
> proposed is the right and only thing we can do: you really do have to handle 
> unknown future cases somehow.
> If I’m getting this right, then maybe there is a variant of the proposal that 
> ties the error/warning behavior to whether or not a module is a source module 
> vs a binary module.  The problem with that right now is that we have no 
> infrastructure in the language to know this…
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to