I'm on vacation and don't have time for a full review right now, but I am concerned that wild this proposal would make enums more general and uniform with the rest of the language , they also would become much more awkward for common use cases. I have recently been very pleased that I didn't have to supply labels in switch statements where the label name would simply have matched the name of the variable to be bound. This looks needlessly verbose:
case .valid(value: let value, resumptionPoint: let resumptionPoint):
I cannot imagine a real life use case where one would have labels in the case and desire to bind associated values to variables having different names than the labels.
Dave has a good point here. (Which I'm reading *after* sending feedback to John.) If
the problem with labels is that using them for conditional binding is awkward, maybe
it's not the labels that's the problem.
Pattern matching with conditional binding is a mess.
* It's hard to read.
* It uses inconsistent `let` and `var` both inside and outside the `case` syntax.
* It uses inconsistent syntax for switch/case, if/case-guard/case, and regular pattern matching.
* Conditional binding is coequal with pattern matching and can be mixed-and-matched,
for example, `case .foo(var x, 0 ... .max) where x % 2 == 1`
* It involves inconsistent operators (`=` and `~=`) and awkward syntax.
* It is hard to teach, to learn, and is one of the overall sore points of the language.
Some problems go away if you bind the existing value to a specific case instead of
conditionally binding new values. There are some significant issues here, but let me
demonstrate to give a sense of what I'm talking about. An approach something like
the following would support this proposal and avoids DRY violations. (I'm not
sure if this is even possible to accomplish):
enum Result<T> {
case success(value: T)
case failure(error: Error)
}
if case let returnedResult ~= .success {
// returnedResult is the `success` case.
print(returnedResult.value) // member access
}
guard case var returnedResult ~= .success else { ...discard error and leave scope ... }
// returnedResult is the `success` case for the remainder of this scope
print(returnedResult.value)
switch returnedResult {
// Something like this
case .success: // use $0.value
}
switch aDifferentEnum {
case foo(x: _, y: 0 ...max) where $0.x %2 == 1: // use $0.x, $0.y
case foo: // use $0.x, $0.y here
}
Can we support labels and re-architect interpretation/binding?
-- E
···
On Feb 19, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Feb 18, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
I agree with this, but I think it’s an issue we can solve (perhaps as an amendment to this proposal).
First, I think Brent’s idea of introducing an argument label that can be distinct from the “property” name of the case is a good one. I think we should do this. It takes the parallel with function signatures even further.
Second, we should allow the “property” name to be `_`. This would mean no label can be used when matching:
case valid(value _: ValueType, resumptionPoint _: PointType)
Third, I think we should also allow suers to elide the label if they either discard the value with `_` or bind a name that is identical to the label, so we might have:
// declaration:
case valid(externalCasConstructorLabel value: ValueType, externalCaseConstructorLabel resumptionPoint: PointType)// match ok:
case .valid(let value, let resumptionPoint):// error, names do not match:
case .valid(let foo, let bar):// ok, label is used:
case .valid(value: let foo, resumptionPoint: let bar):This follows the behavior of function signatures very closely. The external label is used to provide context for the argument at the call site (of the case constructor). The internal name is used to bind a name to the value that is used by code that works with the value.
The only exception here is that because the usage site is distant from the case declaration it may wish to use a different name. We allow that, but only if the “internal name” is also used in the pattern. This preserves the ability of a reader of the code to see the name / meaning of the associated value as it was declared by the enum in addition to the name that might make more sense for use in the local context.
Secondly, I can't imagine a case where one would want to use the same case basename and different labels. The very common use case where the types of associated values completely distinguish the case and one would rather not have to supply a case name at all is completely unaddressed. If my quick read is not mistaken, this proposal makes it legal for cases to have different complete names (including base name and labels), but doesn't make it legal to have the same full name (which I would love to be "_" or missing in some cases) with different associated value types. If we were truly following the precedent set by function signatures, wouldn't that be possible too?
+1. I think this makes a lot of sense. It completes the parallel of cases with overloaded functions.
I think anonymous cases are a really good idea. I discuss those quite a bit in the value subtyping manifesto I shared last week (I’d love to hear your thoughts on it if / when you have time to take a look).
How would you propose that values of anonymous cases be constructed and matched? My solution is to allow them to be constructed by implicit conversion from the associated value type to the enum type and matched by a cast pattern. Is that what you have in mind? I would *really* love to see this someday...
Sent from my moss-covered three-handled family gradunza
On Feb 17, 2017, at 5:26 PM, John McCall <rjmccall@apple.com <mailto:rjmccall@apple.com>> wrote:
Hello Swift community,
The review of "SE-0155: Normalize Enum Case Representation" begins now and runs through next Friday, February 26th. The proposal is available here:
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0155-normalize-enum-case-representation.mdReviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager. When replying, please try to keep the proposal link at the top of the message:Proposal link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0155-normalize-enum-case-representation.md
Reply text
Other replies
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
• What is your evaluation of the proposal?
• 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?More information about the Swift evolution process is available at https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thank you,
John McCall
Review Manager
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution-announce mailing list
swift-evolution-announce@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution-announce@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution-announce_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
