[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Let's talk about submodules

[Karl Wagner]

That’s an interesting proposal. Here are the issues I see:

- I don’t like nesting everything within a large “module” block. I would like a top-level “@module Foo” declaration for the entire file. Also, since any sub-modules would be nested within the implicit top-level module, I’d prefer the keyword “submodule”. Otherwise, what happens if I write:

module Foundation {
// Is this a module-extension? Can I insert new types or top-level functions in to Foundation?
// Am I creating a new top-level module named “Foundation”?
}

Looking at this thread:

- There are certainly issues with access control of submodules. OTOH, I don’t really like the idea that one incorrect import in one file can expose an entire submodule as part of your module’s API.

More generally:

- Access control of submodules seems like something which could benefit from a single source of truth.
- Can submodules have independent versions? Where would we declare them?

I wonder if we should have something like “module manifest” for all of a library’s public submodules, similar to SwiftPM's package manifest. So, strawman syntax…

Module(Foo, version: 1.2.2, description: “A library for foo-ing around with”, submodules: [
    Module(Foo.Maths, version: 1.5.0, description: “A maths library supporting Foo”),
    Module(Foo.Formatters, version: 1.5.0, description: “Formatters for Foo types”)
])

So, in this case we had a module Foo, then we updated FooMaths with some new APIs (say some new operations/types were added, and we updated FooFormatters accordingly). However, the API of Foo itself hasn’t changed; it’s the same as it was ages ago. Would that be possible?

> On 21 Feb 2017, at 02:47, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> You’ll be delighted to know, then, that I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks now and have a draft proposal that will be submitted for discussion shortly.  I believe this can be an additive feature and still preserve all the goodness you would expect of a real module system.
> 
> ~Robert Widmann
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Okay, lots of people want to have some kind of submodule feature, so I'd like to sketch one out so we can hopefully agree on what submodules might look like.
>> 
>> ***
>> 
>> Any group of Swift files can be grouped together to form a submodule. Submodules belong within a particular module, and have a dotted name: If `ModKit` is a module, it might have a submodule called `ModKit.Foo`. Submodules can be nested within one another: `ModKit.Foo.Bar` is a submodule of `ModKit.Foo`, which is a submodule of `ModKit`.
>> 
>> No new access levels are necessary. `internal` APIs are only visible within the submodule they're declared in; a module cannot see its submodules' `internal` APIs, and a submodule cannot see its parent module's `internal` APIs. If a submodule wants to expose some of its APIs to its parent or sibling modules, it must mark them as `public` or `open`. Then they can import the submodule to see its APIs:
>> 
>> 	import ModKit.Foo
>> 
>> By default, outside modules cannot import a submodule. But an import in the parent module can be decorated by an access control keyword to allow that:
>> 
>> 	/// Any module outside ModKit can import ModKit.Foo and access its `public` and `open` APIs.
>> 	open import ModKit.Foo
>> 
>> 	/// Any module outside ModKit can import ModKit.Foo and access its `public` and `open` APIs, 
>> 	/// except `open` APIs are treated as `public`.
>> 	public import ModKit.Foo
>> 
>> Imports may also be decorated by the `@exported` attribute, which exposes the submodule's APIs as though they were parent module APIs:
>> 
>> 	@exported open import ModKit.Foo
>> 
>> 	@exported public import ModKit.Foo
>> 
>> (This is sort of half-implemented already in a buggy `@_exported` attribute.)
>> 
>> Finally, the standard syntax for importing individual symbols can be used to cherry-pick types to treat differently:
>> 
>> 	// Most ModKit.Foo APIs are not importable...
>> 	import ModKit.Foo
>> 
>> 	// ...but SomeEnum can be imported as public...
>> 	public import enum ModKit.Foo.SomeEnum
>> 
>> 	// ...SomeClass can be imported as open...
>> 	open import class ModKit.Foo.SomeClass
>> 
>> 	// And ImportantStruct will import whenever you import ModKit.
>> 	@exported public import struct ModKit.Foo.ImportantStruct
>> 
>> (This syntax should be enhanced to allow cherry-picked importing of global functions, constants, and variables.)
>> 
>> If there are several different `import`s covering the same submodule or submodule symbol, the most permissive one wins.
>> 
>> (In large projects, `public`, `open`, and `@exported` imports will most likely all be put in a single Policy.swift file or something, but this is not enforced by the language.)
>> 
>> A submodule may not import any direct parent module (parent, grandparent, etc.), but may import any other submodule in the same module. This list shows permitted imports for a project with four modules/submodules:
>> 
>> 	ModKit
>> 		- ModKit.Foo
>> 		- ModKit.Foo.Bar
>> 		- ModKit.Quux
>> 	ModKit.Foo
>> 		- ModKit.Foo.Bar
>> 		- ModKit.Quux
>> 	ModKit.Foo.Bar
>> 		- ModKit.Quux
>> 	ModKit.Quux
>> 		- ModKit.Foo
>> 		- ModKit.Foo.Bar
>> 
>> However, submodules may not form circular dependencies through imports—if `ModKit.Quux` imports `ModKit.Foo`, then `ModKit.Foo` cannot import `ModKit.Quux`. The `#if canImport()` feature cannot be used to probe for other submodules within the same top-level module you're in.
>> 
>> At the compiler driver level, a submodule is specified by giving a `-module-name` parameter with a dot in it. When a file is compiled, only the filenames of the other .swift files in the same module are specified, along with .o files for any submodules; then all the .o files within that submodule are linked into a single .o file for the whole submodule. So files in `ModKit.Foo` would be compiled with only the .swift files in `ModKit.Foo` and the .o file for `ModKit.Foo.Bar`; then all the `ModKit.Foo` .o files would be linked into one .o file for the top-level `ModKit` to use. None of `ModKit.Foo`'s .swift files would be included in the command line when compiling the top-level `ModKit` module.
>> 
>> (That bit is kind of speculative—particularly the idea of linking submodule files into a single .o file—but I think something like what I'm describing could work.)
>> 
>> Because the compiler driver is used to group submodules together, Xcode can specify submodules in project file metadata and calculate a submodule dependency graph, while SwiftPM can use folders and compile submodules whenever the compiler emits an error indicating that a file tried to import a nonexistent submodule. Other build systems can do whatever best suits their style.
>> 
>> ***
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Brent Royal-Gordon
>> Architechies
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170221/fca689e6/attachment.html>