[swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

[Dave Abrahams]

on Sat May 07 2016, Andrew Trick <atrick-AT-apple.com> wrote:

>     On May 7, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrahams at apple.com> wrote:
>
>         2. Value types are not "pure" values if any part of the aggregate
>         contains a
>         reference whose type does not have value semantics. 
>
>     Then Array<Int> is not a “pure” value (the buffer contained in an
>     Array<Int> is a mutable reference type that on its own, definitely does
>     *not* have value semantics). I don't think this is what you intend, and
>     it indicates that you need to keep working on your definition.
>
> It sounds like you’re changing the definition of value semantics to make it
> impossible to define PureValue. 

Not on purpose.

> Does Array<T> have value semantics then only if T also has value
> semantics?

This is a great question; I had to rewrite my response four times.

In my world, an Array<T> always has value semantics if you respect the
boundaries of element values as defined by ==.  That means that if T is
a mutable reference type, you're not looking through references, because
== is equivalent to ===.

Therefore, for almost any interesting SomeConstraint that doesn't refine
ValueSemantics, then

  Array<T: SomeConstraint>

only has value semantics if T has value semantics, since SomeConstraint
presumably uses aspects of T other than reference identity.  

> The claim has been made that Array always has value semantics,
> implying that the array value’s boundary ends at the boundary of it’s
> element values.

Yes, an array value ends at the boundary of its elements' values.

> That fact is what allows the compiler to ignore mutation of the
> buffer.

I don't know what you mean here.

> It's perfectly clear that Array<T> is a PureValue iff T is a PureValue.
> PureValue is nothing more than transitive value semantics.

You're almost there.  “Transitive” implies that you are going to look at
the parts of a type to see if they are also PureValue's.  So which parts
of the Array struct does one look at, and why?  Just tell me the
procedure for determining whether a type is a PureValue.

> At any rate, we could add a PureValue magic protocol, and it would have
> well-defined meaning. I'm not sure that it is worthwhile or even a good way to
> approach the problem. But we don't need to argue about the definition.

I don't want to argue about anything, really.  I just want a definition.

-- 
-Dave