[swift-evolution] [proposal] Either in the Swift Standard Library
T.J. Usiyan
griotspeak at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 12:10:06 CST 2016
So the first feature is the ability to limit it to enums.
Another feature that might make things better is the ability to nest types
in methods. This cuts in the opposite direction of Either in theory since
it becomes hyper specific. It think that it is similar to the suggestion
floating around for ad hoc sum types.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Developer <devteam.codafi at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I love the idea, and we tried it in Tyro, but the loss of structure is
> worrying. Plus, there isn't a way to specify that a protocol should apply
> only to an enum like there is with a class, nor that there should be proper
> kind constraints on implementors. e.g.
>
> protocol EitherType {
> associatedtype L
> associatedtype R
>
> var left : L? { get }
> var right : R? { get }
> }
>
> This has a "valid" instance in every constructable type.
>
> extension Int : EitherType {
> public L = String
> public R = NSGlyphGenerator
>
> // Omitted for brevity
> }
>
> You get the picture.
>
> ~Robert Widmann
>
> 2016/01/26 12:36、T.J. Usiyan <griotspeak at gmail.com> のメッセージ:
>
> Is there a way that we can capture the desired parts of this proposal in a
> Protocol or Protocol-like structure? I'm thinking of some way to specify
> behavior that Enums possessing two cases which opt in can share. I
> understand that much of it can be done with a protocol now, what stands in
> the way of it being worthwhile?
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Developer via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> I’m generally with Kevin on this. I’d classify actual-usage of `Either`
>> as one of these three:
>>
>> - often: a rather poorly-named “Result” type (or a slight generalization
>> thereof into the “fat optional”, e.g. instead of “X-or-nothing”, it’s
>> “X-or-why-not-X?")
>>
>>
>> You've described (T?, U?). This is not a "fat optional". And if we must
>> use the term, then it's better to think of the reverse: an Optional is a
>> thin Either. It is an Either that offers less information; a lobe of the
>> type dedicated to () rather than an actual value.
>>
>> - occasionally: a rather poorly-named, 2-way sum type (poorly-named b/c
>> its convention won’t generalize to 3-way sums, or 4-ways sums, etc.)
>>
>>
>> Good thing Either<Either<...>, Either<...>> works.
>>
>> - rarely: a use that’s not really either of the above
>>
>>
>> The ErrorT Monad Transformer?
>>
>> If there are some great uses of `Either` that:
>>
>> - (a) aren’t just Result/the “fat optional”
>>
>>
>> The Validation type is just that. I'm going to draw one up and submit it
>> to Swiftz. I'll let you know when that happens.
>>
>> - (b) aren’t just a 2-way sum
>>
>>
>> I don't understand? Are you literally asking for a non-sum-sum-type?
>>
>> - (c) support clean-and-*correct* implementations directly in terms of
>> standard library functions (e.g., don’t force you to choose between "not
>> actually halting iteration” and “re-implementing `reduce` just to get it
>> right” )
>>
>>
>> I can fix the example, but perhaps you've mistaken its inclusion in the
>> proposal for a call to actually include it in the STL. It was just a romp
>> through the capabilities of the type (see robrix's note about
>> Continuation-Passing-isms).
>>
>> …then this proposal would be a lot stronger for including them.
>>
>>
>> I agree somewhat. See my notes above.
>>
>> ~Robert Widmann
>>
>> 2016/01/26 8:52、plx via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> のメッセージ:
>>
>> I’m generally with Kevin on this. I’d classify actual-usage of `Either`
>> as one of these three:
>>
>> - often: a rather poorly-named “Result” type (or a slight generalization
>> thereof into the “fat optional”, e.g. instead of “X-or-nothing”, it’s
>> “X-or-why-not-X?")
>> - occasionally: a rather poorly-named, 2-way sum type (poorly-named b/c
>> its convention won’t generalize to 3-way sums, or 4-ways sums, etc.)
>> - rarely: a use that’s not really either of the above
>>
>> …which is why the early discussion veered into discussion of Result and
>> structural unions.
>>
>> Sticking to the topic at hand, I’ll actually pick on the `reduceEarly`
>> function in the proposal (as currently-written), because to my eyes that's
>> the only example that’s *perhaps* in that third category of interesting
>> uses:
>>
>> - on an infinite sequence it’s not a correct “early exit”; as-written,
>> it’s a “never-exit” (defeating the purpose in situation you’d want it to
>> actually, you know, exit early)
>> - even on a finite sequence, it’ll consume the entire sequence even on an
>> “early-exit” (swift sequences are single-pass); this limits its usefulness
>> as a building block for other constructs
>>
>> These defects are, of course, easily fixable by manually writing-out the
>> reduce logic; but, if you’re willing to write that out, the implementation
>> cost will be about the same for a “direct" solution and the solution using
>> `Either`, and given that, it’s not clear that *users* wouldn’t generally
>> wind up preferring something like this:
>>
>> enum IterationDecision {
>> Continue
>> ExitEarly
>> }
>>
>> func reduceEarly<T>(initial: T, combine: (T,Generator.Element) ->
>> (T,IterationDecision)) -> T {
>> var result: T = initial
>> for element in self {
>> let (update,decision) = combine(result,element)
>> switch decision {
>> case .Continue: result = update
>> case .EarlyExit: return update
>> }
>> }
>> return result
>> }
>>
>> …where (as a user) the signature and the enumeration make its use
>> essentially self-explanatory, versus, say, this:
>>
>> func reduceEarly<T>(initial: T, combine: (T,Generator.Element) ->
>> Either<T,T>) -> T {
>> var result: T = initial
>> for element in self {
>> switch combine(result,element) {
>> case let .Left(update): result = update
>> case let .Right(update): return update
>> }
>> }
>> return result
>> }
>>
>> …where the user will likely have to check the documentation to see which
>> of `.Left` and `.Right` means “early-exit” here (unless `Either`’s gone
>> sufficiently-pervasive by then that such knowledge will be de rigueur).
>>
>> If there are some great uses of `Either` that:
>>
>> - (a) aren’t just Result/the “fat optional”
>> - (b) aren’t just a 2-way sum
>> - (c) support clean-and-*correct* implementations directly in terms of
>> standard library functions (e.g., don’t force you to choose between "not
>> actually halting iteration” and “re-implementing `reduce` just to get it
>> right” )
>>
>> …then this proposal would be a lot stronger for including them.
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:27 AM, Developer via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Are you opposed to the name or the semantics?
>>
>> I will not accept a revision that reduces the level of abstraction of the
>> current proposal. I will, however, accept name changes. Result, though, I
>> believe is out of the question. It strongly implies a common but pointed
>> set of semantics that discourage thinking of this type as data and more as
>> an alternative to throws. I do not wish to emphasize the error case, or
>> the theoretical case, I wish to encourage the general case. We must
>> remember that despite Rust's success, they do not have to live alongside an
>> exceptions mechanism like Either does.
>>
>> ~Robert Widmann
>>
>> 2016/01/26 0:55、Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> のメッセージ:
>>
>> There absolutely is a cost. `Result<T>` has a rather intuitive meaning.
>> `Either<T>` has *no intuitive meaning whatsoever*. It says absolutely
>> *nothing* about what it means beyond the fact that there are two
>> potential values. As a result, it is a largely useless type whose sole
>> redeeming feature is it allows developers to avoid having to define their
>> own enum, but in most cases that aren't covered by Result<T> you actually
>> *want* to define your own enum so you can attach meaning to the value.
>>
>> If it's not obvious, I'm very strongly against having a generic Either
>> type, but I do want a Result<T> or Result<T,E>.
>>
>> -Kevin Ballard
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, at 10:22 PM, Developer via swift-evolution wrote:
>>
>> My overwhelming concern, after having a conversation with Chris, is that
>> implementing a Result<T> means we are strongly implying a particular
>> semantics and use case when we could generalize and abstract for no cost
>> but an extra generic parameter. In F#, Core.Choice can be used to build a
>> Validation or Result monad, but the converse is impossible.
>>
>> ~Robert Widmann
>>
>> 2016/01/23 1:05、Rob Mayoff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> のメッセージ:
>>
>> Just added a section of motivating examples to the Either proposal. Ping
>> me if you have any more that I missed ('cause I'm sure I did miss a lot).
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/typelift/swift-evolution/blob/either-or/proposals/0024-either.md#motivating-examples
>>
>>
>>
>> Your motivating examples (including all the projects you linked except
>> "Any many more") overwhelmingly use the Either (or similar type) to
>> represent success/failure. I'm not sure there's a single example where the
>> names Left and Right actually make sense in the problem domain. I'm not
>> 100% sure about func alternate in Madness/Alternation.swift. It definitely
>> uses Left/Right to mean Failure/Result, but I couldn't tell if it also uses
>> them as something else. Which makes those names all the more maddening.
>>
>> I checked my company's largest Scala project, which is over 300,000
>> lines. We use Scala's Try/Success/Failure in dozens of places. We use
>> Either/Left/Right once, in a thrown-together report-generating script,
>> which would probably have been written in awk or perl if it didn't need to
>> read binary log files. (The ability of IntelliJ to reliably find all uses
>> of a class or method is not to be underestimated. Hint hint, team Xcode.)
>>
>> I think a Result/Success/Failure type is warranted, but I'm very
>> skeptical about generic Either/Left/Right.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> *_______________________________________________*
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160126/2a17ac21/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list