[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops
Xiaodi Wu
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Sun Jun 12 19:07:46 CDT 2016
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:10 AM, plx via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:30 PM, let var go <letvargo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I respect that anti-goal, but I think being over-rigid about limiting
>> developers' choice of expression is also an anti-goal.
>>
>> To me, it is like guard statements vs. if-let statements. Some people
>> find one to be more clear than the other. Often times the best choice
>> depends on the context. Sometimes a guard statement can be re-written as an
>> if-let statement in a way that makes the code more clear, and vice versa.
>>
>
> The comparison with `guard` and `if` is a little inapt. The introduction
> of `guard` solved a practical daily issue with `if` that was nicknamed the
> pyramid of doom, where successive `if let` statements caused code to be
> severely nested in braces and nearly unreadable. Further, you must exist
> the scope with `guard`; thus, its use signals an intention not possible
> with `if`. If, on the other hand, you do not wish to exit the scope, you
> must use `if`. So in a Venn diagram, there are independent uses for `if`
> that cannot be fulfilled by `guard`, and uses for `guard` that would be
> unreadable if rewritten with `if`.
>
>
>> And different people will inevitably have different personal preferences
>> - their own "style", if you will - and will favor one over the other. But
>> it would be a mistake to force everyone into one box in order to prevent
>> the fracturing of the Swift community into "dialects."
>>
>
>> But most importantly (and this is really the kicker for me) there are
>> times when the "where" syntax provides the maximum amount of clarity in the
>> context of my code, and I don't want to lose that expressive power.
>>
>
> This is the key and salient point here. Would you be able to share some
> examples where the `where` syntax provides a clear win in clarity? That
> would definitely be a huge pro, if it can be used to solve issues in
> expressiveness much like `guard` allowed elimination of the pyramid of doom.
>
>
> I’d hate to lose `where` in for-in loops; I use it a lot. My own 2c on it
> is that I think if you look at isolated uses of `where` it’s not adding
> much clarity, but having it can allow you to adopt more-consistent patterns
> overall…which IMHO *does* result in clearer code.
>
> I’ll provide two examples of such “consistent patterns” and how the
> presence of `for`-`in` `where` helps stick with them.
>
> First Pattern: for some simple types I like to do data-driven unit tests —
> here’s a collection of values to test, here’s a basic, “algebraic" property
> that should apply, test it actually does, and so on.
>
> When I write a set of tests like that, I like to have a single variable
> holding the “instances to test” that is shared by all relevant tests; this
> lets me start with only a handful of values, confirm it seems to work, and
> then have a single place to edit once I’m ready to expand the values we
> test upon.
>
> Such tests might wind up looking like this:
>
> func testNaiveAncestor() {
> // the root has no ancestor so we simply to skip it:
> for position in testPositions where !position.isRootPosition {
> XCTAssertLessThan(
> position.naiveAncestor(),
> position
> )
> }
> }
>
> func testNaiveSuccessor() {
> for position in testPositions {
> XCTAssertGreaterThan(
> position.naiveSuccessor(),
> position
> )
> }
> }
>
> …where `testPositions` holds the values to test, and the two tests are
> each testing a basic algebraic property. Having `where` available on
> for-loops makes it possible to write these in such a way that the intended
> parallelism between the two is visually-apparent—you can tell they’re the
> same sort of thing just by looking at them—and it does so in a way that
> makes few assumptions on the type-or-contents of `testPositions`.
>
First, notice how your comment is related to the `where` clause but is
actually sitting on top of the loop itself. Second, one of these two tests
visits every element while the other doesn't, and it took me three reads
before I could see that because I literally couldn't find the `where`
clause the first two times I scanned through your code. This is a false
"parallelism," causing the very thing that *isn't* parallel to disappear
from the reader's eye. Compare instead this alternative, which also flips
the boolean assertion:
```
func testNaiveAncestor() {
for position in testPositions {
// the root has no ancestor
if position.isRootPosition { continue }
// (notice how I don't even have to comment that we're skipping root,
// because the code says it explicitly for me)
XCTAssertLessThan(position.naiveAncestor(), position)
}
}
```
Now, with my rewriting, the part of your test that is strictly similar to
the other test looks parallel, and the one part that isn't at all similar
(the skipping part) stands out explicitly and is now self-documenting code.
> So `where` here, IMHO, isn’t *clearly* clearer in `testNaiveAncestor()`,
> but it lets `testNaiveAncestor()` and `testNaiveSuccessor()` (etc.) be
> *systemically*-clearer, as it were.
>
> Second Pattern: relatedly, I find code is much clearer when `guard` is
> only-ever used for early exits and early returns.
>
> There’s no requirement to *not* use `guard` and `continue` together, but
> if one is willing to stick to `guard` == “early exit / early return” it
> makes code much easier to read and audit.
>
> In a handful of places I have for loops that would need both
> `continue`-style conditionals and also early-exit conditionals; having
> `where` means I can stick to using `guard` for early-exits, whereas without
> it I’d have extra nesting or mixed “early-exit” guard and “continue” guard.
>
I don't know what to say here. The fact is that `guard` with `continue` is
a documented and advertised feature of Swift; it's not simply supported by
accident. Of course, you're free to choose not to use that feature at all.
And it is true that, currently, `where` allows you to avoid that feature at
the top of a `for` loop, but anywhere else inside the loop and you'll have
to deal with extra nesting if you choose to reject `guard` with `continue`.
IIUC, one of the motivating reasons for introducing `guard` was to solve
the pyramid of doom problem. So you're rejecting the intended solution for
extra nesting, at least in certain circumstances, a choice you're obviously
free to make in your own code. But when it comes to designing a language
for everyone, the fact that some users reject the intended solution would
be grounds for re-examining that solution (i.e. `guard`), but the mantra
here has always been one solution where possible and not multiple. So this
certainly cannot be a justification for another feature (i.e. `where`)
which only incidentally provides a substitute solution in certain
situations.
> This is as short as I can make it:
>
> /// Returns the portion of our frame that *might* be visible on-screen;
> doesn't
> /// handle occlusion, but unlike `approximateWindowRegion` will account
> for
> /// clipping done by our superviews.
> ///
> /// - note: `intersectionRegion(with view: UIView)` takes `self.bounds`,
> converts
> /// it to `view`'s coordinates, intersects with `view.bounds`,
> then converts
> /// that back to `self`'s coordinates...returning `nil` for any
> empty rects.
> ///
> @warn_unused_result
> public final func approximateVisibleRegion() -> CGRect? {
> // before checking everything, confirm we *have a window* and that our
> // position vis-a-vis the window could *possibly* make sense
> // no window => not visible
> guard let w = self.window else {
> return nil
> }
> // empty "frame-intersect-window" => not visible
> guard let regionInWindow = self.intersectionRegion(with: w) else {
> return nil
> }
>
> // now we prepare to "walk upstream":
> var lastVisitedView = self
> var currentFrame = regionInWindow
>
> // walk "upstream" (starting from our superview), skipping:
> // - superviews that don't clip-to-bounds
> // - the window (since we already took our intersection with it)
> for upstreamView in self.exclusiveSuperviewSequence() where
> upstreamView.clipsToBounds && upstreamView !== w {
> // finding a nil intersection => not visible, early-exit
> guard let upstreamIntersection =
> lastVisitedView.intersectionRegion(with: upstreamView) else {
> return nil
> }
> lastVisitedView = upstreamView
> currentFrame = upstreamIntersection
> }
> // belt-and-suspenders final steps:
> assert(!currentFrame.isEmpty && !currentFrame.isNull)
> return self.convertRect(
> currentFrame,
> fromView: lastVisitedView
> ).onlyIfNonEmpty
> }
>
> …and without `where` on `for`-`in` loops, the main `for` loop winds up
> looking like one of these:
>
> // with `if`:
> for upstreamView in self.exclusiveSuperviewSequence() {
> if upstreamView.clipsToBounds && upstreamView !== w {
> // finding a nil intersection => not visible, early-exit
> guard let upstreamIntersection =
> lastVisitedView.intersectionRegion(with: upstreamView) else {
> return nil
> }
> lastVisitedView = upstreamView
> currentFrame = upstreamIntersection
> }
> }
>
> // with mixed-guard usage:
> for upstreamView in self.exclusiveSuperviewSequence() {
> guard upstreamView.clipsToBounds && upstreamView !== w else {
> continue
> }
> // finding a nil intersection => not visible, early-exit
> guard let upstreamIntersection =
> lastVisitedView.intersectionRegion(with: upstreamView) else {
> return nil
> }
> lastVisitedView = upstreamView
> currentFrame = upstreamIntersection
> }
> }
>
> …and again neither one is *awful*, but:
>
> - the one with `if` adds another level of nesting (annoying!)
> - the one with “guard” has mixed “guard” usage (continue/exit)
>
> …and since I like to stick to early-exit guard—it makes it easier to read
> if “guard == exit method”—I’d have to go with the nesting option, which I
> just don’t like much.
>
> Those are the strongest examples I can find; the rest are all essentially
> like this:
>
> extension Dictionary {
>
> // with `where`
> func mapValues<T>(excludingKeys keySet: Set<Key>, @noescape valueMap:
> (Value) -> T) -> [Key:T] {
> guard !keySet.isEmpty else {
> return self.mapValues(valueMap)
> }
> var result: [Key:T] = [:]
> for (key,value) in self where !keySet.contains(key) {
> result[key] = valueMap(result)
> }
> return result
> }
>
> // without `where`, `if`:
> func mapValues<T>(excludingKeys keySet: Set<Key>, @noescape valueMap:
> (Value) -> T) -> [Key:T] {
> guard !keySet.isEmpty else {
> return self.mapValues(valueMap)
> }
> var result: [Key:T] = [:]
> for (key,value) in self {
> if !keySet.contains(key) {
> result[key] = valueMap(result)
> }
> }
> return result
> }
>
> // without `where`, `guard`:
> func mapValues<T>(excludingKeys keySet: Set<Key>, @noescape valueMap:
> (Value) -> T) -> [Key:T] {
> guard !keySet.isEmpty else {
> return self.mapValues(valueMap)
> }
> var result: [Key:T] = [:]
> for (key,value) in self {
> guard keySet.contains(key) else {
> continue
> }
> result[key] = valueMap(result)
> }
> return result
> }
>
> }
>
> …where again I don’t like “continue” `guard` and thus would wind up
> picking the `if` variant, which adds another level of nesting (or use
> `.lazy.filter` and trust the compiler’s going to boil away the overhead for
> me).
>
> So in conclusion, IMHO `where` on a `for`-`in` is a *modest* improvement
> in clarity when considered in isolation, but is handier than it may
> initially seem b/c it can allow for broader overall consistency of style.
>
> I thus would be in favor of keeping `where` on for-in, or if it must be
> removed doing so with the intent to restore some better-designed equivalent
> shortly after removal.
>
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this idea--if you don't like it, then you don't have to use
>>> it--is indicative of a key worry here: it's inessential to the language and
>>> promotes dialects wherein certain people use it and others wherein they
>>> don't. This is an anti-goal.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:10 let var go <letvargo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leave it in!
>>>>
>>>> It's a great little tool. I don't use it very often, but when I do it
>>>> is because I've decided that in the context of that piece of code it does
>>>> exactly what I want it to do with the maximum amount of clarity.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't like it, then don't use it, but I can't see how it
>>>> detracts from the language at all.
>>>>
>>>> The *only* argument that I have heard for removing it is that some
>>>> people don't immediately intuit how to use it. I didn't have any trouble
>>>> with it at all. It follows one of the most basic programming patterns ever:
>>>> "For all x in X, if predicate P is true, do something." The use of the
>>>> keyword "where" makes perfect sense in that context, and when I read it out
>>>> loud, it sounds natural: "For all x in X where P, do something." That is an
>>>> elegant, succinct, and clear way of stating exactly what I want my program
>>>> to do.
>>>>
>>>> I don't doubt that it has caused some confusion for some people, but
>>>> I'm not sold that that is a good enough reason to get rid of it. It seems
>>>> strange to get rid of a tool because not everyone understands how to use it
>>>> immediately, without ever having to ask a single question. As long as its
>>>> not a dangerous tool (and it isn't), then keep it in the workshop for those
>>>> times when it comes in handy. And even if there is some initial confusion,
>>>> it doesn't sound like it lasted that long. It's more like, "Does this work
>>>> like X, or does this work like Y? Let's see...oh, it works like X. Ok."
>>>> That's the entire learning curve...about 5 seconds of curiosity followed by
>>>> the blissful feeling of resolution.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:32 AM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Sean Heber via swift-evolution <
>>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > And to follow-up to myself once again, I went to my "Cool 3rd Party
>>>>>> Swift Repos" folder and did the same search. Among the 15 repos in that
>>>>>> folder, a joint search returned about 650 hits on for-in (again with some
>>>>>> false positives) and not a single for-in-while use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Weird. My own Swift projects (not on Github :P) use “where” all the
>>>>>> time with for loops. I really like it and think it reads *and* writes far
>>>>>> better as well as makes for nicer one-liners. In one project, by rough
>>>>>> count, I have about 20 that use “where” vs. 40 in that same project not
>>>>>> using “where”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In another smaller test project, there are only 10 for loops, but
>>>>>> even so one still managed to use where.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a lot of data without looking at even more projects, I admit, but
>>>>>> this seems to suggest that the usage of “where” is going to be very
>>>>>> developer-dependent. Perhaps there’s some factor of prior background at
>>>>>> work here? (I’ve done a lot of SQL in another life, for example.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is worrying if true, because it suggests that it's enabling
>>>>> 'dialects' of Swift, an explicit anti-goal of the language.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel like “where” is a more declarative construct and that we
>>>>>> should be encouraging that way of thinking in general. When using it, it
>>>>>> feels like “magic” for some reason - even though there’s nothing special
>>>>>> about it. It feels like I’ve made the language work *for me* a little bit
>>>>>> rather than me having to contort my solution to the will of the language.
>>>>>> This may be highly subjective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> l8r
>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20160612/ab6377f2/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list