[swift-evolution] Improved value and move semantics

[Dave Abrahams]

on Wed Aug 03 2016, Matthew Johnson <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> on Tue Aug 02 2016, Brent Royal-Gordon <brent-AT-architechies.com> wrote:
>> 
>
>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If it says that, it's... not quite right.  There are things we could do
>>>> to make some value copies more optimal.  For example, any value type
>>>> containing multiple class references—or multiple other value types (such
>>>> as arrays or strings or dictionaries) that contain class references—will
>>>> cost more to copy than a single class reference does.  At the cost of
>>>> some allocation and indirection, we could reduce the copying cost of
>>>> such values.  It's an optimization we've considered making, but haven't
>>>> prioritized.  
>>>> 
>>>> You can put a CoW wrapper around your value to do it manually.  I hacked
>>>> one up using ManagedBuffer for someone at WWDC but I don't seem to have
>>>> saved the code, sadly.
>>> 
>>> Slightly off-topic, but one day I would like to see `indirect` turned
>>> into a generalized COW feature:
>>> 
>>> * `indirect` can only be applied to a value type (or at least to a
>>> type with `mutating` members, so reference types would have to gain
>>> those).
>>> * The value type is boxed in a reference type.
>>> * Any use of a mutating member (and thus, use of the setter) is
>>> guarded with `isKnownUniquelyReferenced` and a copy.
>>> * `indirect` can be applied to an enum case with a payload (the
>>> payload is boxed), a stored property (the value is boxed), or a type
>>> (the entire type is boxed).
>>> 
>>> Then you can just slap `indirect` on a struct whose copying is too
>>> complicated and let Swift transparently COW it for you. (And it would
>>> also permit recursive structs and other such niceties.)
>> 
>> My vision for this feature is:
>> 
>> a. We indirect automatically based on some heuristic, as an
>>   optimization.
>> 
>> b. We allow you to indirect manually.
>> 
>> c. We provide an attribute that suppresses automatic indirection to
>>   whatever depth possible given resilience boundaries.
>
> This all sounds great.  Does any of this fit into Swift 4 (either
> phase 1 or phase 2)?  It seems like at least the automatic part would
> have ABI impact.

Yes.  In principle, all of it has the potential to fit in Swift 4.  I'm
not sure what will actually happen of course.

-- 
-Dave