[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

[Douglas Gregor]

This sounds good to me. I added the first rule a very long time ago (based on C++'s injected-class-name rules) because I felt it eliminated boilerplate, but it's caused too much confusion to be worth it. Thanks for working on this!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments
> Proposal: SE-9999
> Author: Slava Pestov
> Status: Awaiting review
> Review manager: TBD
> Introduction
> 
> This proposal cleans up the semantics of a reference to a generic type when no generic arguments are applied.
> 
> Swift-evolution thread: Discussion thread topic for that proposal
> 
> Motivation
> 
> Right now, we allow a generic type to be referenced with no generic arguments applied in a handful of special cases. The two primary rules here are the following:
> 
> If the scope from which the reference is made is nested inside the definition of the type or an extension thereof, omitting generic arguments just means to implicitly apply the arguments from context.
> 
> For example,
> 
> struct GenericBox<Contents> {
>   let contents: Contents
> 
>   // Equivalent to: func clone() -> GenericBox<Contents>
>   func clone() -> GenericBox {
>     return GenericBox(contents: contents)
>   }
> }
> 
> extension GenericBox {
>   func print() {
>     // Equivalent to: let cloned: GenericBox<Contents>
>     let cloned: GenericBox = clone()
>     print(cloned.contents)
>   }
> }
> If the type is referenced from an unrelated scope, we attempt to infer the generic parameters.
> 
> For example,
> 
> func makeABox() -> GenericBox<Int> {
>   // Equivalent to: GenericBox<Int>(contents: 123)
>   return GenericBox(contents: 123)
> }
> The problem appears when the user expects the second behavior, but instead encounters the first. For example, the following does not type check:
> 
> extension GenericBox {
> 
>   func transform<T>(f: Contents -> T) -> GenericBox<T> {
>     // We resolve 'GenericBox' as 'GenericBox<Contents>', rather than
>     // inferring the type parameter
>     return GenericBox(contents: f(contents))
>   }
> }
> Proposed solution
> 
> The proposed solution is to remove the first rule altogether. If the generic parameters cannot be inferred from context, they must be specified explicitly with the usual Type<Args...> syntax.
> 
> Detailed design
> 
> This really just involves removing an existing piece of logic from the type resolver code.
> 
> Impact on existing code
> 
> This will have a small impact on existing code that uses a pattern similar to the above.
> 
> Alternatives considered
> 
> Status quo
> 
> We could keep the current behavior, but one can argue it is not very useful, and adds a special case where one is not needed.
> 
> More complex inference of generic parameters
> 
> We could attempt to unify the two rules for resolving a reference to a generic type with no arguments, however this presents theoretical difficulties with our constraint solver design. Even if it were easy to implement, it would increase type checking type by creating new possibilities to consider, with very little actual benefit.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160624/68059589/attachment.html>