On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:03 AM, T.J. Usiyan <griotspeak@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't get behind this feature. Beside the lack of payoff for added
syntax, the biggest problem is that this is mostly handled by default
values. If we had (once we get?) constant expressions, I imagine that we
might even be able to reference other parameters in default value method
calls–which seems like a more generally useful fix for the issue.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < >>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Félix Cloutier <felixcca@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I was okay with memberwise initializers but this pushes me beyond my
comfort zone.
Hi Felix, can you elaborate on why? This feature is quite similar to
features in other languages that are generally considered to be quite
useful.
For example, most dynamic languages have the ability to pack
arguments. There has been discussion of adding tuple packing and unpacking
to Swift but it wouldn’t offer everything it does in dynamic languages (as
far as I can tell).
Swift is statically typed so we would have to specify a type for the
tuple to pack / unpack. This means it must be a fixed list of arguments.
This is not the case in dynamic languages, where whatever arguments the
caller provides are forwarded.
Also, because the packed tuple parameter is declared manually, there
would not be a way to forward a default argument value for specific members
of the tuple as far as I can see (I think a default would need to be
specified for the entire tuple, not just specific members). Even if there
were a way to specify a value for specific members, I don’t believe it
would be possible to “forward” the default value specified by the receiving
function, which is actually what is desired. In dynamic languages, callers
can just provide a subset of the tuple arguments and the receiving function
detects missing arguments, filling in a default.
Another example is variadic generics in C++, which can also forward an
arbitrary set of arguments to a receiving function. This feature of C++
relies on the fact that the body of a template is not checked until it is
expanded. This allows the caller of the forwarding function to supply any
set of parameters that would be valid when calling the forwardee.
Even if Swift supported variadic generics I don’t think this method of
forwarding fits the language as the body of a generic function is checked
on its own. I don’t believe there would be a way to specify constraints
that would allow the arguments to be used to call the forwarding function
(I may be wrong about that if a new kind of constraint was introduced to
support this in the future).
The forwarding mechanism in this proposal supports a couple of things
that I think will be quite useful which are not possible under the examples
of tuple packing and unpacking in Swift that I have seen shared thus far:
1. Providing default values for specific parameters, not just a whole
packed tuple
2. Forwarding default parameter values from the forwardee function for
said parameters
3. Forwarding a subset of the forwarded’s parameters
4. Explicitly providing default values for disambiguation and to
suppress forwarding of specific parameters where the callee provides a
default value
5. Forwarding generic parameters
I'm not sold on the usefulness of the feature. Memberwise initializers
save you from typing out the init parameters and assignments to each field.
Argument forwarding saves you from spelling out the parameters *more than
once* (because you still need to type them out for the receiving function)
and from *one call*. While I've been annoyed at initializers, I don't think
I've ever been particularly annoyed at forwarding functions.
Both features save approximately the same amount of code. They save
explicit declaration of parameters as well as a single action with the
provided argument.
More importantly, forwarding is a general purpose feature that when
combined with partial initializers and property lists can support much more
expressive memberwise initialization than contained in the initial
proposal. There was quite a bit of discussion about both the limitations
of the memberwise initialization proposal as well as the specificity of it
to exactly one use case (memberwise initialization). Forwarding plays a
role in removing the limitations while building on a more general
foundation.
Here’s an example that takes advantage of the combined power of the
three proposals I just posted:
struct S {
var name: String = “"
private let x, y, z: Int
propertylist args: left x = 0, top y = 0, name
init(…args) { z = 0 }
}
This does several things not possible in the current memberwise init
proposal:
1. Supports an arbitrary subset of members
2. Supports an arbitrary order for memberwise parameters
3. Supports arbitrary labels for memberwise parameters
4. Supports arbitrary default values for parameters, including `let`
properties
5. Allows more-private properties to be exposed by more-public
initializer
Here’s how it works:
1. The `propertylist` declaration introduces a partial memberwise
initializer corresponding to the properties specified (it also gives you a
computed tuple property containing the specified properties).
2. The `…args` placeholder causes the primary initializer to forward
arguments to the partial initializer introduced in step 1.
The equivalent manually written code would look like this (assuming
partial initializers and omitting the `args` tuple property that would be
synthesized):
struct S {
var name: String = “"
private let x, y, z: Int
partial init args(left x: Int = 0, top y: Int = 0, name: String = “”)
{
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.name = name
}
init(left x: Int = 0, top y: Int = 0, name: String = “”) {
args.init(left: x, top: y, name: name)
z = 0
}
}
These features work together to support the additional desired use
cases for memberwise initialization while remaining concise and arguably
more clear (because the property list explicitly states which members
participate in the memberwise partial initializer).
Because the features supporting this are general we also gain:
1. Forwarding in any function, not just initializers (but including
concise forwarding of parameters to a super or member initializer, or
forwarding from a convenience initializer that just needs to provide a few
direct arguments to the designated initializer and forward the rest).
2. Partial initialization support for shared, but non-memberwise
initialization logic
3. Computed tuple properties for each propertylist. (and possibly
additional memberwise features in the future if we identify any that would
also be generally useful)
In my opinion this is a huge win for both initialization as well as
other parts of our code that might take advantage of these features.
I'll let the parser guys say if it's a lot of work to implement or not,
but if I allow myself to speak outside of my expertise, I imagine that it's
gonna be a lot more work than memberwise initializers because this requires
inspecting the function body to figure out its parameters.
It is a bit more work, sure. It requires matching the explicitly
provided arguments with the parameter list of any callee overloads that are
in scope and determining whether:
1. There are no overloads for which the provided arguments could be
part of a valid call. Compiler error.
2. There is a single overload for which the provided arguments could be
part of a valid call. Forward the remaining arguments.
3. There are more than one overloads for which the provided arguments
could be part of a valid call. Compiler error due to ambiguity.
If we want a forwarding mechanism capable of forwarding default
argument values, and possibly (but very desirable IMO) a subset of
parameters there is no way to avoid this logic. I am not an expert at the
implementation of such features, but I don’t think it is excessively
complex next to other logic implemented in the compiler.
At this point, I feel that a competent macro system is a better
investment than adding distinct bits of automation wherever there appears
to be repetition.
I agree that a macro system would be great, but it is explicitly not in
scope for Swift 3. It would also not be capable of implementing parameter
forwarding as described in this proposal.
I hope you will consider discussing this further.
Matthew
Félix
Le 10 janv. 2016 à 22:44:36, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < >>>> swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit :
I have always considered the Flexible Memberwise Initialization
proposal to be just a first step (as evidenced by the many future
enhancements it discussed). Its review has inspired new ideas and helped
to shape my vision of the best long-term solution. My final thoughts about
the review can be found here:
[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0018 Flexible Memberwise Initialization
Parameter forwarding is the first in a series of three proposals
describing general features that can work together to form a complete
solution.
The proposal drafts can be found at the following links:
* *Parameter forwarding:*
https://github.com/anandabits/swift-evolution/blob/parameter-forwarding/proposals/NNNN-parameter-forwarding.md
* *Partial initializers:*
https://github.com/anandabits/swift-evolution/blob/partial-initializers/proposals/NNNN-partial-initializers.md
* *Property lists:*
https://github.com/anandabits/swift-evolution/blob/property-lists/proposals/NNNN-property-lists.md
Matthew
Parameter Forwarding
- Proposal: SE-NNNN
<https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/NNNN-parameter-forwarding.md>
- Author(s): Matthew Johnson <https://github.com/anandabits>
- Status: *Awaiting review*
- Review manager: TBD
Introduction
This feature introduces an automatic parameter forwarding mechanism.
Swift-evolution thread: Proposal Draft: parameter forwarding
<https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution>
Motivation
There are many cases where a function declares parameters simply for
the purpose of forwarding the provided arguments to another function. This
results in reduntant parameter specifications that make code less clear and
less readable by obscuring the simple forwarding that is actually happening.
This feature will be especially useful in initializers such as:
- Convenience initializers that foward parameters directly to a
designated initializer
- Designated initializers that foward parameters directly to a
super initializer
- Designated initializers that foward parameters directly to a
member initializer, perhaps in a composition-based design
- If the partial initilaizer proposal is accepted, designated
initializers that forward parameters to one or more partial initializers
NOTE: I haven’t had time to think too much aboue use cases beyond
initialization. Please share examples and I will add them to this proposal.
Proposed solution
The proposed solution is to introduce an automatic parameter forwarding
mechansim. It allows users to provide direct arguments for some parameters
while forwarding others.
The basic mechanism looks like this:
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, f: Float = 42, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
foo(i: 32, ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar(s: String, f: Float = 42, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) {
foo(i: 32, s: s, f: f, d: d, b: b)
}
Some things to note about the syntax:
1. ...fooParams is a placeholder introduced with ... and followed
by an identifier.
2. In the signature it can be placed anywhere in the parameter list.
3. At the call site, it must appear at the end of the argument list.
4. The placeholder matches the parameters not directly provided
including their external label and default value if those exist.
5. Parameters corresponding to the matched parameters are
synthesized by the compiler where the placeholder exists in the parameter
list, including the default argument if one exists.
6. The identifier portion of the placeholder may be omitted if only
one set of forwarded parameters exist within the function.
Additional details will be introduced with a corresponding example.
Omitting the placeholder identifier
The above example can be written more concisely by omitting the
placeholder identifier.
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, f: Float = 42, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
// user writes:func bar(...) {
foo(i: 32, ...)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar(s: String, f: Float = 42, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) {
foo(i: 32, s: s, f: f, d: d, b: b)
}
NOTE: If the community feels strongly that the identifier should be
required I am willing to do so.
Multiple forwarded parameter sets
It is possible for a single function to forward more than one set of
parameters:
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, f: Float = 42) { }func foo2(d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams, ...foo2Params) {
foo2(...foo2Params)
foo(i: 32, ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar(s: String, f: Float = 42, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) {
foo(i: 32, s: s, f: f, d: d, b: b)
}
Direct arguments
Any direct arguments provided in the forwarding call must follow the
usual argument ordering rules, with the only exception being that it is
allowed to omit some arguments that would normally be required. When the
compiler performs forwarding it will insert forwarded arguments in the
correct location.
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, f: Float = 42, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
func bar(...fooParams) {
// error: `i` must precede `s` in the argument list
foo(s: "hello", i: 32, ...fooParams)
}
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
foo(i: 32, f: 0, ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar(s s: String, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) {
foo(i: 32, s: s, f: 0, d: d, b: b)
}
Multi-forwarding the same parameters
It is allowed to use the same identifier in multiple forwarding calls
as long as the signature of the matched parameters matches exactly,
including any default values.
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43) { }func bar(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43) { }
// user writes:func baz(...fooBarParams) {
foo(...fooBarParams)
bar(...fooBarParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes: func baz(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43) {
foo(i: i, s: s, d: d)
bar(i: i, s: s, d: d)
}
NOTE: This provision might be controversial. If the community doesn’t
like it or the implementation is too complex I will remove it.
Unambiguous call
When forwarding parameters to a function that is overloaded the caller
must provide enough direct arguments to make the call unambiguous.
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }func foo(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43, f: Float = 42) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
// error: ambiguous use of foo
// foo(i: 32, ...fooParams)
// ok: `b` makes the call to foo unambiguous
foo(b: true, ...fooParams)
// ok: `f` makes the call to foo unambiguous
foo(f: 24, ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes: func bar(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43) {
foo(i: i, s: s, d: d, b: true)
foo(i: i, s: s, d: d, f: 24)
}
Default values
When forwarding to a function that accepts default values it is
possible to explicitly request the default value. This allows for
disambiguation and also allows the forwarding function to suppress a
defaulted parameter from participating in forwarding without needing to
supply a specific value. The default keyword is used to do this.
We can modify the previous example to use the defualt values:
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }func foo(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43, f: Float = 42) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
// ok: `b` makes the call to foo unambiguous, still uses default value
foo(b: default, ...fooParams)
// ok: `f` makes the call to foo unambiguous, still uses default value
foo(f: default, ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43) {
foo(i: i, s: s, d: d, b: false)
foo(i: i, s: s, d: d, f: 42)
}
It is also possible to explicitly request all defaults at once using
default.... In this example, foois not overloaded:
func foo(i i: Int, s: String, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
foo(default..., ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar(i i: Int, s: String) {
foo(i: i, s: s, d: 43, b: false)
}
NOTE: The actual implementation of default arguments looks somewhat
different. These examples are intended to communicate the behavior, not the
exact details of implementation.
Generic parameters
If the types of any matched parameters reference any generic type
parameters of the forwardee the generic type parameters must also be
forwarded, along with any constraints on those generic parameters.
func foo<T>(i i: Int, s: String, t: T, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
foo(...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar<T>(i i: Int, s: String, t: T, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) {
foo(i: i, s: s, t: t, d: d, b: b)
}
If a generic parameter is referenced in a constraint that also
references a generic parameter that will not be forwarded the constraint is
resolved to a concrete type when possible. This may not be possible in all
cases. When it is not possible a compiler error will be necessary.
func foo<S: SequenceType, T: SequenceType where S.Generator.Element == T.Generator.Element>
(s: S, t: T) { }
// user writes:func bar(...fooParams) {
foo(t: [42], ...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar<S: SequenceType where S.Generator.Element == Int>(s: S) {
foo(s: s, t: [42])
}
Syntheszied internal names
The compiler must ensure that all synthesized parameters have internal
names that do not conflict with the internal names of any manually declared
parameters. This applies to both generic type parameter names as well as
value arguments in the parameter list of the function.
func foo<T>(i i: Int, s: String, t: T, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) { }
// user writes:func bar<T>(t: T, ...fooParams) {
// do something with t
foo(...fooParams)
}
// compiler synthesizes:func bar<T, InternalCompilerIdentifier>(t: T, i i: Int, s: String, t internalCompilerIdentifier: InternalCompilerIdentifier, d: Double = 43, b: Bool = false) {
foo(t: t, i: i, s: s, t: internalCompilerIdentifier, d: d, b: b)
}
Detailed design
TODO but should fall out pretty clearly from the proposed solution
Impact on existing code
This is a strictly additive change. It has no impact on existing code.
Alternatives considered
I believe the forwarding mechanism itself is pretty straightforward and
any alternatives would be lose functionality without good reason.
The placeholder syntax is of course fair game for bikeshedding. I
consider anything reasonably clear and concise to be acceptable.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
