[swift-evolution] Fwd: Should we relax restriction on closing over outer scope in class declarations?
Callionica (Swift)
swift-callionica at callionica.com
Sat Dec 24 14:13:12 CST 2016
I may be missing your point about lifetime extension problems. How would
lifetime extension be different for captures by classes than for captures
by function closures?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi at gmail.com>
wrote:
> That still doesn't answer the lifetime extension problems. What is being
> described here is a complex extension to the lifetime of memory that is
> only being kept alive because of these implicit captures. It sounds like
> what you want is a member, and I'm not sure it's worth saving 5 lines to
> avoid that fact.
>
> ~Robert Widmann
>
> 2016/12/24 11:45、Callionica (Swift) via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> のメッセージ:
>
> Missed swift-evol in my reply
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Callionica (Swift) <swift-callionica at callionica.com>
> Date: Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Should we relax restriction on closing over
> outer scope in class declarations?
> To: Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi at gmail.com>
>
>
> These are good questions.
>
> I believe Swift closures currently do implicit self-capture. I wouldn't
> expect that behavior to be different when capturing for classes.
>
> If a class needs to refer to an outer self, I would expect the user to
> have to give the outer self a new name by assigning to a local. Same deal
> for referring to members in an outer class where there are members of the
> same name in the inner class: assign outer self to a local and refer to
> members through that local.
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Callionica (Swift) via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> I'm certainly assuming that users have a basic understanding of scope
> (without that, what would be the intention behind defining the class within
> the function?).
>
>
> Despite its simplicity to you (given the example you’ve cited) this
> feature is quite an advanced extension to the current scoping rules.
>
> I'm not clear on what you see as the downside of letting classes capture
> locals for users that are unaware of capturing.
>
>
> I’ll be blunt: This opens a gaping hole in the semantics of variable
> lifetimes and potentially introduces an ambiguity into resolution of the
> `self` keyword. For the former, consider a light extension to your
> original example that introduces a nested class:
>
> class Outer {
> let widgetString: String = createWidgetString()
>
> // Initializer suppressed
> func foo() -> WidgetStringProvider {
> class SimpleProvider: WidgetStringProvider {
> // Initializer suppressed
> func provideWidgetString() -> String {
> return widgetString
> }
> }
> return SimpleProvider()
> }
> }
>
> Now, from SIL’s point of view, widgetString must escape the scope it’s
> in and its lifetime should be extended beyond this block. Fine. But what
> about Outer? Because we’re returning a reference to SimpleProvider which
> escapes the scope of foo(), and instance members of a SimpleProvider
> capture outer context, this means we also have to keep Outer alive and
> around for destruction (perhaps at the point where SimpleProvider is
> destroyed?)
>
> For the latter consider trying to explicitly reference widgetString
> here. In provideWidgetString() we close over self in both foo() and
> provideWidgetString(). So, if I wish to make reference to Outer’s self explicitly,
> how would I go about doing it? Given that today a nested aggregate can
> have members with the same identifiers as their parent, how do we know if
> we’re capturing them or not when they’re referenced in the inner aggregate?
>
> ~Robert Widmann
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:26 PM Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Only if you're also assuming that people defining classes within functions
> would know about capturing. This violates the principle of progressive
> disclosure, since people naturally learn about functions and classes before
> they learn about closures and capturing.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 01:51 Callionica (Swift) <
> swift-callionica at callionica.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming capture were allowed, people defining classes within functions
> who didn't want them to capture could position the class definition prior
> to any other code in the function so that there would be nothing to
> capture.
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:13 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Michael; it seems dangerous to allow implicit capture
> by classes. A primary purpose (telos?) of closures is to provide this
> functionality, which is actually quite an advanced concept. One knows to
> think carefully about this when encountering a closure expression. A
> primary purpose of classes is to provide for encapsulation of code.
> Accidentally extending the lifetime of a local variable in a containing
> scope would be hard to notice and highly unexpected functionality. Better
> not to mix these things.
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 17:54 Micah Hainline via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> That's exactly what I'm suggesting, the class declaration could work
> similarly to a closure.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Michael Ilseman <milseman at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
>
>
> > Are you asking for a class declaration to implicitly capture and extend
> the lifetime of local variables? That seems like something that’s better
> done explicitly. Perhaps it’s better to think about how to reduce the
> boiler plate code, e.g. better default initializers.
>
>
> >
>
>
> > (this is of course, additive and beyond the current scope of Swift 4
> phase 1 planning)
>
>
> >
>
>
> >> On Dec 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Micah Hainline via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> Currently we allow declarations of a new class in local scope, but
>
>
> >> nothing can be referenced from the outer scope. Thus this is illegal:
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> ```
>
>
> >> func foo() {
>
>
> >> let widgetString: String = createWidgetString()
>
>
> >> class SimpleProvider: WidgetStringProvider {
>
>
> >> func provideWidgetString() -> String {
>
>
> >> return widgetString // Illegal, defined in outer scope
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >> doThingsWithWidget(provider: WidgetStringProvider())
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >> ```
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> I'm trying to feel out the edges of this decision, and figure out why
>
>
> >> exactly this isn't allowed now, and how we might want to relax this in
>
>
> >> the future if possible. While not a common construct, it is a useful
>
>
> >> one.
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> Obviously there are ways around it, very simple to create an init and
>
>
> >> a private let and do something like this:
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> ```
>
>
> >> func foo() {
>
>
> >> let widgetString: String = createWidgetString()
>
>
> >> class SimpleProvider: WidgetStringProvider {
>
>
> >> private let widgetString: String
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> init(widgetString: String) {
>
>
> >> self.widgetString = widgetString
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> func provideWidgetString() -> String {
>
>
> >> return widgetString // now legal, references
>
>
> >> SimpleProvider.widgetString
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >> doThingsWithWidget(provider: WidgetStringProvider(widgetString:
>
>
> >> widgetString))
>
>
> >> }
>
>
> >> ```
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> That's boilerplate I don't want to write though, as it somewhat
>
>
> >> detracts from the readability of the structure. I'm not super
>
>
> >> interested in defending the concept of local class definitions itself,
>
>
> >> it's already allowed in the language, I'm just interested in the
>
>
> >> syntax limitation and where that line might be able to be redrawn.
>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
>
> >> 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/20161224/883804a3/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list