Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
-D__swift__=XYYZZ
e.g.
-D__swift__=30001
for Swift 3.0.1.
This is option (1). Option (2) would be to define __swift__ as a predicate that took version numbers:
For completeness’ sake, option (3) would be to define a single macro __SWIFT3__, defined to 1. Clients can test for the presence or absence of this macro. I don’t like this option because (a) Swift 4 will also need to define __SWIFT3__, because it shouldn’t have the “old” behavior, and (b) we might very well want something like this again in the future; will we also define __SWIFT4__?
(Why __swift__ and not __SWIFT__? By analogy with __cplusplus [sic] and __clang__, although not __STDC__ or
__STDC_VERSION__. I don’t actually have a strong opinion here.)
Thoughts?
Jordan
P.S. For Apple folks, this is rdar://problem/26921435 <rdar://problem/26921435>.
Option (1) sounds good to me. We don’t need to make this complicated.
- Doug
···
On Aug 24, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com> wrote:
Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
On Aug 24, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
-D__swift__=XYYZZ
e.g.
-D__swift__=30001
for Swift 3.0.1.
This is option (1).
Option (1) sounds good to me. We don’t need to make this complicated.
Okay. Next question: two digits or three digits for the minor and patch versions?
- Two digits: if we ever switch to year/month combinations like C/C++, those will be higher values (unless we get to Swift 20 first).
- Three digits: better for "fake" versions like 3.0.100.
Jordan
···
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:38, Douglas Gregor <dgregor@apple.com> wrote:
On Aug 24, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
-D__swift__=XYYZZ
e.g.
-D__swift__=30001
for Swift 3.0.1.
This is option (1).
Option (1) sounds good to me. We don’t need to make this complicated.
On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:38, Douglas Gregor <dgregor@apple.com <mailto:dgregor@apple.com>> wrote:
On Aug 24, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
-D__swift__=XYYZZ
e.g.
-D__swift__=30001
for Swift 3.0.1.
This is option (1).
Option (1) sounds good to me. We don’t need to make this complicated.
Okay. Next question: two digits or three digits for the minor and patch versions?
- Two digits: if we ever switch to year/month combinations like C/C++, those will be higher values (unless we get to Swift 20 first).
- Three digits: better for "fake" versions like 3.0.100.
On Aug 25, 2016, at 14:58, Douglas Gregor <dgregor@apple.com> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:38, Douglas Gregor <dgregor@apple.com <mailto:dgregor@apple.com>> wrote:
On Aug 24, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
-D__swift__=XYYZZ
e.g.
-D__swift__=30001
for Swift 3.0.1.
This is option (1).
Option (1) sounds good to me. We don’t need to make this complicated.
Okay. Next question: two digits or three digits for the minor and patch versions?
- Two digits: if we ever switch to year/month combinations like C/C++, those will be higher values (unless we get to Swift 20 first).
- Three digits: better for "fake" versions like 3.0.100.
FWIW, it would be great if this was documented *somewhere*. Not certain if we have a handy place to put documentation on Clang Importer behavior for Swift developers.
···
On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016, at 14:58, Douglas Gregor <dgregor@apple.com <mailto:dgregor@apple.com>> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:38, Douglas Gregor <dgregor@apple.com <mailto:dgregor@apple.com>> wrote:
On Aug 24, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose@apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com>> wrote:
Hey, all. I’m here to propose predefining a macro __swift__ when C code is compiled with Swift. We’ve gotten a few requests for it in the past and haven’t done it so that people don’t write header files that arbitrarily restrict features when used from Swift, or check for "Swift" when they really should be checking for modules support, or Objective-C mode, or nullability support. (Or worse, they guard code under __swift__ and then don’t ever test it, leading to failures to import the module from Swift.)
However, with Swift 3, it’s now become important for Objective-C authors to be able to control how their APIs look in modern Swift 3 without disrupting existing clients on Swift 2.3. (Or just because Swift 3 style looks out-of-place in Swift 2.3.) The most obvious way to do this would be to define a macro that has the Swift version in it. For Swift version X.Y.Z, we could use something like
-D__swift__=XYYZZ
e.g.
-D__swift__=30001
for Swift 3.0.1.
This is option (1).
Option (1) sounds good to me. We don’t need to make this complicated.
Okay. Next question: two digits or three digits for the minor and patch versions?
- Two digits: if we ever switch to year/month combinations like C/C++, those will be higher values (unless we get to Swift 20 first).
- Three digits: better for "fake" versions like 3.0.100.