Comments in-line below
-- Howard.
This continues to forbid use cases that are critical.
I think "critical" is overstating the importance. Plenty of successful
languages do not have extensions. Extensions have been discussed and
rejected by successful languages. The .NET guidelines suggest considered
cautious use. I have tried to encapsulate the best practice into a language
feature.
For instance, I am writing a library that vends additional conformances for
Float and Double. Any numerics library would need to do the same.
You need to consider this carefully because your numerics library might add
a method sinh for example and the user of your library might be using other
numerical libraries as well, one of these others might also provide sinh.
Which is to be called in the user code by f.sinh? Suppose one library
emphasises speed over accuracy and the other vice versa. You really want
access to both versions in the user code. This is a situation I have come
across a few times in numeric C, Java, and C++ with matrix libraries where
code I have worked on has used multiple libraries in the same application
for good reason.
I think you would be better vending functions for things like sinh, rather
than extending float with an additional function, and vending types for
more complex things like matrices, rather than extending arrays with dot
products for example. If you vend a type you can easily give access to the
underlying type using composition rather than extension or inheritance,
there is an example of this in the proposal just above the Justification
section..
Your design would eliminate all such libraries, which is a non-starter. I
am not sure what defects you are trying to solve with this proposal.
I am trying to make Swift more consistent, easier to learn, and to
encourage third-party libraries.
···
On 17 Apr 2017, at 9:01 am, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 17:51 Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt@gmail.com> wrote:
I have updated the proposal to address your concerns, in particular I
don't see that retrospectively adding methods and protocols has been
removed it has just had its ugly corners rounded. See revised proposal
below particularly the end of section "Retrospectively adding protocols
and methods" and new section "Justification".Hope this convinces you that the change is worthwhile.
-- Howard.
====================================
# Proposal: Split extension usage up into implementing methods and adding
methods and protocols retrospectively## Revision history
> Version | Date | Comment |
>---------|--------------|--------------|
> Draft 1 | 11 April 2017 | Initial version |
> Draft 2 | 13 April 2017 | Added support for post-hoc conformance to a
protocol - replaced static final extensions with final extensions |> Draft 3 | 17 April 2017 | Added justification section |
## Introduction
Currently extension methods are confusing because they have different
dispatch rules for the same calling syntax. EG:public protocol P {
func mP() -> String
}
extension P {
func mP() -> String { return "P.mP" }
func mE() -> String { return "P.mE" }
}
struct S: P {
func mP() -> String { return "S.mP" }
func mE() -> String { return "S.mE" }
}
let s = S()
s.mP() // S.mP as expected
s.mE() // S.mE as expected
let p: P = s // Note: s now typed as P
p.mP() // S.mP as expected
p.mE() // P.mE unexpected!
Extension methods can also cause compatibility problems between modules,
consider:In Module A
extension Int: P {
func m() -> String { print("A.m") }
}
In Module B
extension Int: P {
func m() -> String { print("B.m") }
}
In Module C
import A
import B // Should this be an error
let i = 0
i.m() // Should it return A.m or B.m?
This proposal cures the above two problems by separating extension methods
into two seperate use cases: implementations for methods and adding methods
and protocols retrospectively.## Implementing methods
If the extension is in the same file as the protocol/struct/enum/class
declaration then it implements the methods and is dispatched using a
Vtable. EG:File P.swift
protocol/struct/enum/class P {
// func m() not declared in type since it is added by the
extension, under this proposal it is an error to include a declaration in a
type *and* in an extension}
extension P {
func m() { print("P.m") } // m is added to the
protocol/struct/enum/class declaration}
Same or other file
struct S: P {
override func m() { print("S.m") } // Note override required
because m already has an implementation from the extension}
let p: P = S() // Note typed as P
p.m() // Now prints S.m as expected
Extensions in the same file as the declaration can have any access, can be
final, and can have where clauses and provide inheritable implementations.In a protocol at present there is a difference in behaviour between a
protocol that declares a method that is then implemented in an extension
and a protocol that just has the method implemented in an extension and no
declaration. This situation only applies to protocols, for
structs/enumerated/classes you cannot declare in type and implement in
extensions. The proposal unifies the behaviour of
protocol/struct/enum/class with extensions and prevents the error of a
minor typo between the protocol and extension adding two methods instead of
generating an error.The implementation needed to achieve this proposal is that a value
instance typed as a protocol is copied onto the heap, a pointer to its
Vtable added, and it is passed as a pointer. IE it becomes a class
instance. No change needed for a class instance typed as a protocol.## Retrospectively adding protocols and methods
A new type of extension is proposed, a "final extension", which can be
either in or outside the file in which the protocol/struct/enum/class
declaration is in. EG:protocol P2 {
func m2P()
}
final extension S: P2 { // Note extension marked final
func m2P() { print("SP2.m2P") } // Implicitly final, completely
implements P2func m2E() { print("SP2.m2E") } // Implicitly final, not an
existing method}
Which are called as any other method would be called:
let s = S()
s.m2P() // Prints SP2.m2P
s.m2E() // Prints SP2.m2E
A method added by a final extension is is implicitly final, as the name
would suggest, and cannot be overridden.Notes:
1. If the final extension adds a method, e.g. m2E, that method cannot
already exist. IE a final extension cannot override an existing method or
implement a protocol declared method that lacks an implementation unless it
also adds the protocol.2. If the final extension adds a protocol then it must implement all the
methods in that protocol that are not currently implemented.3. If the final extension is outside of the file in which the
protocol/struct/enum/class declaration is in then the extension and the
methods can only have fileprivate or internal access. This prevents
retrospective extensions from numerous modules clashing, since they are not
exported outside of the module.When a type is extended inside a module with a final extension the
extension is not exported. For example:final extension Int: P2 {
func m2P() { print("Int.m2P") }
}
If an exported function uses Int, e.g.:
public func f(_ x: Int) -> Int {
x.m2P()
return x
}
Then when used in an external module both the input Int and the output Int
are not extended with P2. However as the Int goes into f it gains P2
conformance and when it leaves it looses P2 conformance. Thus inside and
outside the module the behaviour is easily understood and consistent and
doesn't clash with other final extensions in other modules.Taking the above example further an Int with P2 conformance is required by
the user of a library; then it can simply and safely be provided, e.g.:public class P2Int: P2 {
var value = 0
func m2P() { print("Int.m2P") }
}
This type, P2Int, is easy to write, one line longer than a final
extension, and can easily be used as both a P2 and an Int and does not
clash with another Int extension from another module.## Justification
The aim of Swift is nothing more than dominating the world. Using the
current, April 2017, TIOBE Index - TIOBE index of job
adverts for programmers the languages that are in demand are: Java 15.568%,
C 6.966%, C++ 4.554%, C# 3.579%, Python 3.457%, PHP 3.376%, Visual Basic
.NET 3.251%, JavaScript 2.851%, Delphi/Object Pascal 2.816%, Perl 2.413%,
Ruby 2.310%, and Swift 2.287%. So Swift at 12th is doing very well for a
new language and is already above Objective-C at 14th. However there is
obviously a long way to go and the purpose of this proposal is to help with
this climb.A characteristic of many of the languages above Swift in the Tiobe Index
is that they have major third party libraries; for some languages they are
almost defined by their third part libraries, e.g. Ruby for Rails. A major
part of this proposal is to make extensions safe when using multiple
libraries from different venders. In particular final extensions are not
exported.As part of Swift's goal of world domination is that it is meant to be easy
to learn by a process of "successive disclosure". The current inconsistent
behaviour of protocols and extensions hinders this process and is a common
gotcha for newbies. This proposal eliminates that problem also.Extensions are not new in languages, they are part of the .NET languages
for example. Since .NET popularised extensions they have been discussed by
other language communities, particularly Java and Scala, and in the
academic community (normally termed the Expression Problem) however they
have not proved popular because of the problems they cause. Nearly all
languages have a strong bias towards keeping the language small and simple
and trade of the advantages of a feature against the disadvantages and the
feature only makes it into the language if it offers many advantages, has
few disadvantages, and is not heavily overlapping with other features. This
keeping it small and simple test is what extensions have failed in other
languages.Experience from .NET can however be used to improve extensions. There is
some excellent advice March 10, 2007 - Visual Basic Blog
extension-methods-best-practices-extension-methods-part-6/ written by the
VB .NET team when they added extensions to VB .NET. The best-practice
advice can be summarised by the following quotes from the reference:0. "In most real world applications these suggestions [the rest of the
suggestions] can (and quite frankly should!) be completely ignored." This
is an important observations, in your own code that is not intended for
reuse; go for it, use extensions. The proposal importantly still allows
this style of programming and in fact improves it by adding consistent
behaviour and syntax between protocols/structs/enumerated/classes.1. "Read the .NET Framework Class Library Design Guidelines." The
equivalent for Swift is lacking at this stage. Probably because third party
libraries are rare.2. "Be wary of extension methods." This recommendation is formalised in
the proposal by limiting final extensions to be fileprivate or internal.3. "Put extension methods into their own namespace." This recommendation
is formalised in the proposal by limiting final extensions to be
fileprivate or internal.4. "Think twice before extending types you don’t own."
5. "Prefer interface extensions over class extensions." Translation to
Swift terminology provide default implementations for protocol methods. The
proposal encourages this by eliminating a major gotcha with the current
implementation, namely the proposal always dispatches via a Vtable to give
consistent behaviour.6. "Be as specific with the types you extend as possible." Translation
to Swift terminology provide default implementations for protocol methods
that extend other protocols if there is a more specific behaviour that is
relevent. The proposal encourages this by eliminating a major gotcha with
the current implementation, namely the proposal always dispatches via a
Vtable to give consistent behaviour.The proposal formalises these best practices from .NET whilst increasing
consistence and without loosing the ability to use extensions heavily in
your own one-off code to allow for rapid development. Most of the best
practices are for better libraries, particularly third party, which is an
important area for future Swift growth onto the server side. This proposal
actively encourages this transition to large formal server side code
without loosing the free wheeling nature of app code.## Possible future work (not part of this proposal)
This proposal will naturally allow bodies to be added to protocols
directly rather than via an extension, since under the proposal the
extension adds the declaration to the type so it is a small step to allow
the protocol methods to have an implementation.In an opposite sense to the above adding bodies to protocols, extensions
could be allowed to add method declarations without bodies to protocols.The two above future work proposals, if both added, would add symmetry to
where declarations and bodies may appear for protocols.## In summary.
The proposal formalises the split use of extensions into their two uses:
implementing methods and post-hoc adding protocols and methods. Syntax is
added that clarifies the two use cases, the former are termed extensions
and must be in the same file as the type is declared, and the latter are
termed final extensions and can be in any file, however if they are not in
the type's file the they can only have fileprivate or internal access.Note the distinction between an extension in the same file and in a
separate file is consistent with the philosophy that there is special
status to the same file as proposed for private in
GitHub - apple/swift-evolution: This maintains proposals for changes and user-visible enhancements to the Swift Programming Language.
proposals/0169-improve-interaction-between-private-
declarations-and-extensions.md.===================================================
#Proposal: Split extension usage up into implementing methods and adding
methods and protocols post-hocDraft 2 (Added support for post-hoc conformance to a protocol - replaced
static final extensions with final extensions)## Introduction
Currently extension methods are confusing because they have different
dispatch rules for the same calling syntax. EG:public protocol P {
func mP() -> String
}
extension P {
func mP() -> String { return "P.mP" }
func mE() -> String { return "P.mE" }
}
struct S: P {
func mP() -> String { return "S.mP" }
func mE() -> String { return "S.mE" }
}
let s = S()
s.mP() // S.mP as expected
s.mE() // S.mE as expected
let p: P = s // Note: s now typed as P
p.mP() // S.mP as expected
p.mE() // P.mE unexpected!
Extension methods can also cause compatibility problems between modules,
consider:In Module A
extension Int: P {
func m() -> String { print("A.m") }
}
In Module B
extension Int: P {
func m() -> String { print("B.m") }
}
In Module C
import A
import B // Should this be an error
let i = 0
i.m() // Should it return A.m or B.m?
This proposal cures the above two problems by separating extension methods
into two seperate use cases: implementations for methods and adding methods
and protocols post-hoc.## Implementing methods
If the extension is in the same file as the protocol/struct/class
declaration then it implements the methods and is dispatched using a
Vtable. EG:File P.swift
protocol/struct/class P {
// func m() not declared in type since it is added by the
extension, under this proposal it is an error to include a declaration in a
type *and* in an extension}
extension P {
func m() { print("P.m") } // m is added to the
protocol/struct/class declaration}
Same or other file
struct S: P {
override func m() { print("S.m") } // Note override required
because m already has an implementation from the extension}
let p: P = S() // Note typed as P
p.m() // Now prints S.m as expected
Extensions in the same file as the declaration can have any access, can be
final, and can have where clauses and provide inheritable implementations.In a protocol at present there is a difference in behaviour between a
protocol that declares a method that is then implemented in an extension
and a protocol that just has the method implemented in an extension and no
declaration. This situation only applies to protocols, for structs and
classes you cannot declare in type and implement in extensions. The
proposal unifies the behaviour of protocol/struct/class with extensions and
prevents the error of a minor typo between the protocol and extension
adding two methods instead of generating an error.The implementation needed to achieve this is that a value instance typed
as a protocol is copied onto the heap, a pointer to its Vtable added, and
it is passed as a pointer. IE it becomes a class instance. No change needed
for a class instance typed as a protocol.## Post-hoc adding protocols and methods
A new type of extension is proposed, a "final extension", which can be
either in or outside the file in which the protocol/struct/class
declaration is in. EG:protocol P2 {
func m2P()
}
final extension S: P2 { // Note extension marked final
func m2P() { print("SP2.m2P") } // Implicitly final, completely
implements P2func m2E() { print("SP2.m2E") } // Implicitly final, not an
existing method}
Which are called as any other method would be called:
let s = S()
s.m2P() // Prints SP2.m2P
s.m2E() // Prints SP2.m2E
A method added by a final extension is is implicitly final, as the name
would suggest, and cannot be overridden.If the final extension:
1. Adds a method, e.g. m2E, that method cannot already exist. IE a final
extension cannot override an existing method or implement a protocol
declared method that lacks an implementation unless it also post-hoc adds
the protocol.2. Adds a protocol then it must implement all the methods in that
protocol that are not currently implemented.3. Is outside of the file in which the protocol/struct/class declaration
is in then the extension and the methods can only have fileprivate or
internal access. This prevents post-hoc extensions from numerous modules
clashing, since they are not exported outside of the module.## Possible future work (not part of this proposal)
This proposal will naturally allow bodies to be added to protocols
directly rather than via an extension, since under the proposal the
extension adds the declaration to the type so it is a small step to allow
the protocol methods to have an implementation.In an opposite sense to the above adding bodies to protocols, extensions
could be allowed to add method declarations without bodies to protocols.The two above future work proposals, if both added, would add symmetry to
where declarations and bodies may appear for protocols.## In summary.
The proposal formalises the split use of extensions into their two uses:
implementing methods and post-hoc adding protocols and methods. Syntax is
added that clarifies the two use cases, the former are termed extensions
and must be in the same file as the type is declared, and the latter are
termed final extensions and can be in any file, however if they are not in
the type's file the they can only have fileprivate or internal access.Note the distinction between an extension in the same file and in a
separate file is consistent with the philosophy that there is special
status to the same file as proposed for private in
GitHub - apple/swift-evolution: This maintains proposals for changes and user-visible enhancements to the Swift Programming Language.
proposals/0169-improve-interaction-between-private-
declarations-and-extensions.md.====================================
On 14 Apr 2017, at 8:17 am, Brent Royal-Gordon <brent@architechies.com> > wrote:
On Apr 13, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
I don't see that retroactive conformance needs to be exportable. If it is
exported then you cannot prevent clashes from two modules, this is a known
problem in C#. Because of this and other problems with C# extensions, this
style of extension were rejected by other language communities (notably
Java and Scala).A better alternative for export is a new class that encapsulates the
standard type but with added methods for the protocol to be added. This way
there is no clash between modules. EG:public protocol P {
func m() -> String
}
public class PInt: P {
var value = 0
func m() -> String { return "PI.m" }
}
Howard, this would be very source-breaking and would fail to achieve
fundamental goals of Swift's protocol design. Removing retroactive
conformance is no more realistic than removing Objective-C bridging—another
feature which introduces various ugly edge cases and tricky behaviors but
is also non-negotiable.--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies