On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> Good arguments, Tony, you have convinced me on all points. Transient is > the way to go. Thank you for your patience! > On many points, I agree with Tony, but I disagree that "transient" addresses the issue at hand. The challenge being made is that, as Gwendal puts it, it's _unwise_ to have a default implementation, because people might forget that there is a default implementation. "Transient" only works if you remember that there is a default implementation, and in that case, we already have a clear syntax for overriding the default. As others point out, there's a temptation here to write things like "transient(Equatable)" so as to control the synthesis of implementations on a per-protocol basis. By that point, you've invented a whole new syntax for implementing protocol requirements. (Ah, you might say, but it's hard to write a good hashValue implementation: sure, but that's adequately solved by a library-supplied combineHashes() function.) > -Thorsten > > Am 12.09.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Tony Allevato via swift-evolution < > [email protected]>: > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:05 PM Gwendal Roué <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> This doesn't align with how Swift views the role of protocols, though. >>> One of the criteria that the core team has said they look for in a protocol >>> is "what generic algorithms would be written using this protocol?" >>> AutoSynthesize doesn't satisfy that—there are no generic algorithms that >>> you would write with AutoEquatable that differ from what you would write >>> with Equatable. >>> >>> >>> And so everybody has to swallow implicit and non-avoidable code >>> synthesis and shut up? >>> >> >> That's not what I said. I simply pointed out one of the barriers to >> getting a new protocol added to the language. >> >> Code synthesis is explicitly opt-in and quite avoidable—you either don't >> conform to the protocol, or you conform to the protocol and provide your >> own implementation. What folks are differing on is whether there should >> have to be *two* explicit switches that you flip instead of one. >> >> >> No. One does not add a protocol conformance by whim. One adds a protocol >> conformance by need. So the conformance to the protocol is a *given* in our >> analysis of the consequence of code synthesis. You can not say "just don't >> adopt it". >> >> As soon as I type the protocol name, I get synthesis. That's the reason >> why the synthesized code is implicit. The synthesis is explicitly written >> in the protocol documentation, if you want. But not in the programmer's >> code. >> >> I did use "non-avoidable" badly, you're right: one can avoid it, by >> providing its custom implementation. >> >> So the code synthesis out of a mere protocol adoption *is* implicit. >> >> Let's imagine a pie. The whole pie is the set of all Swift types. Some >> slice of that pie is the subset of those types that satisfy the conditions >> that allow one of our protocols to be synthesized. Now that slice of pie >> can be sliced again, into the subset of types where (1) the synthesized >> implementation is correct both in terms of strict value and of business >> logic, and (2) the subset where it is correct in terms of strict value but >> is not the right business logic because of something like transient data. >> >> >> Yes. >> >> What we have to consider is, how large is slice (2) relative to the whole >> pie, *and* what is the likelihood that developers are going to mistakenly >> conform to the protocol without providing their own implementation, *and* >> is the added complexity worth protecting against this case? >> >> >> That's quite a difficult job: do you think you can evaluate this >> likelihood? >> >> Explicit synthesis has big advantage: it avoids this question entirely. >> >> Remember that the main problem with slide (2) is that developers can not >> *learn* to avoid it. >> >> For each type is slide (2) there is a probability that it comes into >> existence with a forgotten explicit protocol adoption. And this probability >> will not go down as people learn Swift and discover the existence of slide >> (2). Why? because this probability is driven by unavoidable human behaviors: >> - developer doesn't see the problem (a programmer mistake) >> - the developper plans to add explicit conformance later and happens to >> forget (carelessness) >> - a developper extends an existing type with a transient property, and >> doesn't add the explicit protocol conformance that has become required. >> >> Case 2 and 3 bite even experienced developers. And they can't be improved >> by learning. >> >> Looks like the problem is better defined as an ergonomics issue, now. >> >> If someone can show me something that points to accidental synthesized >> implementations being a significant barrier to smooth development in Swift, >> I'm more than happy to consider that evidence. But right now, this all >> seems hypothetical ("I'm worried that...") and what's being proposed is >> adding complexity to the language (an entirely new axis of protocol >> conformance) that would (1) solve a problem that may not exist to any great >> degree, and (2) does not address the fact that if that problem does indeed >> exist, then the same problem just as likely exists with certain >> non-synthesized default implementations. >> >> >> There is this sample code by Thorsten Seitz with a cached property which >> is quite simple and clear : https://lists.swift.org/ >> pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170911/039684.html >> >> This is the sample code that had me enter the "worried" camp.' >> > > I really like Thorsten's example, because it actually proves that > requiring explicit derivation is NOT the correct approach here. (Let's set > aside the fact that Optionals prevent synthesis because we don't have > conditional conformances yet, and assume that we've gotten that feature as > well for the sake of argument.) > > Let's look at two scenarios: > > 1) Imagine I have a value type with a number of simple Equatable > properties. In a world where synthesis is explicit, I tell that value type > to "derive Equatable". Everything is fine. Later, I decide to add some > cache property like in Thorsten's example, and that property just happens > to also be Equatable. After doing so, the correct thing to do would be to > remove the "derive" part and provide my custom implementation. But if I > forget to do that, the synthesized operator still exists and applies to > that type. If you're arguing that "derive Equatable" is better because its > explicitness prevents errors, you must also accept that there are possibly > just as many cases where that explicitness does *not* prevent errors. > > 2) Imagine I have a value type with 10 Equatable properties and one > caching property that also happens to be Equatable. The solution being > proposed here says that I'm better off with explicit synthesis because if I > conform that type to Equatable without "derive", I get an error, and then I > can provide my own custom implementation. But I have to provide that custom > implementation *anyway* to ignore the caching property even if we don't > make synthesis explicit. Making it explicit hasn't saved me any work—it's > only given me a compiler error for a problem that I already knew I needed > to resolve. If we tack on Hashable and Codable to that type, then I still > have to write a significant amount of boilerplate for those custom > operations. Furthermore, if synthesis is explicit, I have *more* work > because I have to declare it explicitly even for types where the problem > above does not occur. > > So, making derivation explicit is simply a non-useful dodge that doesn't > solve the underlying problem, which is this: Swift's type system currently > does not distinguish between Equatable properties that *do* contribute to > the "value" of their containing instance vs. Equatable properties that *do > not* contribute to the "value" of their containing instance. It's the > difference between behavior based on a type and additional business logic > implemented on top of those types. > > So, what I'm trying to encourage people to see is this: saying "there are > some cases where synthesis is risky because it's incompatible with certain > semantics, so let's make it explicit everywhere" is trying to fix the wrong > problem. What we should be looking at is *"how do we give Swift the > additional semantic information it needs to make the appropriate decision > about what to synthesize?"* > > That's where concepts like "transient" come in. If I have an > Equatable/Hashable/Codable type with 10 properties and one cache property, > I *still* want the synthesis for those first 10 properties. I don't want > the presence of *one* property to force me to write all of that boilerplate > myself. I just want to tell the compiler which properties to ignore. > > Imagine you're a stranger reading the code to such a type for the first > time. Which would be easier for you to quickly understand? The version with > custom implementations of ==, hashValue, init(from:), and encode(to:) all > covering 10 or more properties that you have to read through to figure out > what's being ignored (and make sure that the author has done so correctly), > or the version that conforms to those protocols, does not contain a custom > implementation, and has each transient property clearly marked? The latter > is more concise and "transient" carries semantic weight that gets buried in > a handwritten implementation. > > Here's a fun exercise—you can actually write something like "transient" > without any additional language support today: https://gist.github.com/ > allevato/e1aab2b7b2ced72431c3cf4de71d306d. A big drawback to this > Transient type is that it's not as easy to use as an Optional because of > the additional sugar that Swift provides for the latter, but one could > expand it with some helper properties and methods to sugar it up the best > that the language will allow today. > > I would wager that this concept, either as a wrapper type or as a built-in > property attribute, would solve a significant majority of cases where > synthesis is viewed to be "risky". If we accept that premise, then we can > back to our slice of pie and all we're left with in terms of "risky" types > are "types that contain properties that conform to a certain protocol but > are not really transient but also shouldn't be included verbatim in > synthesized operations". I'm struggling to imagine a type that fits that > description, so if they do exist, it's doubtful that they're a common > enough problem to warrant introducing more complexity into the protocol > conformance system. > > > >> >> Gwendal >> >> _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
