[swift-evolution] [Proposal][Discussion] Modular Swift
Robert Widmann
devteam.codafi at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 20:44:13 CST 2017
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Jonathan Hull <jhull at gbis.com> wrote:
>
> What is the rational for having modules covering only part of a file? Wouldn’t it be less clutter to have an annotation which worked for the whole file. At the very least it would be nice to have an option to spell it in a way that applies to the whole file. Otherwise, everything will be indented another level.
That is a valid spelling (Rust, IIRC, allows that spelling), but one that is easy to miss sitting in a file and makes it confusing to introduce submodules. If you include the annotation then define a submodule later down in the file, suddenly you have to remember whether you annotated the file or whether the submodule you’ve just written is going into the top-level module. See:
// -module-name=Foo
// module Foo {
module Bar; // Shorthand for “This file defines Foo.Bar”
/* Code */
// This defines “Foo.Bar.Baz”, but would you know that if it appeared below the fold?
module Baz {}
//}
If anything, this can be added later if evolution converges on it.
>
> I would honestly love to see something which just maps modules to folders/groups for simplicity sake.
>
There is nothing about this scheme that prevents you from organizing your code this way. However, modulo that particular method of organization, you don’t really gain much as a user of the language by imposing this restriction.
> I haven’t thought about it too much yet, so I could easily be missing something obvious...
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
>
>> On Feb 20, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Good Evening All,
>>
>> Jaden Geller and I have been considering a (sub)module system for Swift that would complement the existing language but also provide sorely needed modularity. A draft of the proposal is attached to this email, but it can also be read as a gist <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a> if you desire.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> ~Robert Widmann
>>
>> Modular Swift
>>
>> Proposal: SE-NNNN <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/NNNN-filename.md>
>> Authors: Robert Widmann <https://github.com/codafi>, Jaden Geller <https://github.com/JadenGeller>
>> Review Manager: TBD
>> Status: Awaiting review
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#introduction>Introduction
>>
>> Almost every major programming language supports some form of modular programming through constructs like (sub)modules, packages, or interfaces. Swift, though it provides top-level modules to organize code under, does not provide a complete implementation of any of these concepts, which has led instead to the proliferation of access control levels. This has not proven an effective way to decompose programs into manageable parts, and exposes the need for a real system of modules to solve this modularity problem once and for all.
>>
>> Separation of code into distinct islands of functionality should be a first-class construct in the language, not dependent on external files and tools or filesystems. To that end, we propose the introduction of a lightweight module system for Swift.
>>
>> Swift-evolution thread <applewebdata://32B8028F-83F6-4547-817C-897FD96FD281>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#motivation>Motivation
>>
>> Swift has reached a point in its evolution where rich libraries and large projects that take on many dependencies have matured significantly. To accomodate the information-hiding and semantics-signalling needs of these users at the time, Swift began its access control story with just three access modifiers: public, private, and internal then grew fileprivate and open as the need to express locality of implementation and "subclassability" arose respectively. In doing so, Swift's access control scheme has become anti-modular.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#proposed-solution>Proposed solution
>>
>> We propose the introduction of a lightweight module system for Swift. More than simply namspaces, a module declaration interacts with Swift's access control to provide an API boundary that allows better control over an interface's design.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#detailed-design>Detailed design
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#syntax>Syntax
>>
>> A module is a named region that introduces a lexical scope into which declarations may be nested. The name of the module can be used to access these member declarations. A module, like other aggregate structures in Swift, may be extended with new declarations over one or more translation units (files).
>>
>> We propose a new declaration kind, module-decl be added to the language. A proposed grammar using the new modulekeyword is given below:
>>
>> GRAMMAR OF A MODULE DECLARATION
>>
>> module-declaration -> `module` module-identifier module-body
>> module-name -> identifier
>> module-body -> { module-members(opt) }
>> module-members -> module-member module-members(opt)
>> module-member -> declaration | compiler-control-statement
>> GRAMMAR OF A DECLARATION
>>
>> + declaration -> module-declaration
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#general-semantics>General Semantics
>>
>> Syntax and semantics for imports, as it already supports referencing submodules imported from C and Objective-C modules, remains unchanged:
>>
>> // The outermost module is given explicitly
>> // by passing `-module-name=Foo` or exists implicitly, as today.
>> // module Foo {
>> public class A {}
>>
>> module Bar {
>> module Baz {
>> public class C {}
>> }
>>
>> public class B {}
>> }
>>
>> let message = "Hello, Wisconsin!"
>> // } // End declarations added to module Foo.
>> To consume this interface:
>>
>> // imports all of Foo, Foo.Bar, and Foo.Bar.Baz
>> import Foo.Bar.Baz
>>
>> // imports Foo.A as A
>> import class Foo.A
>> // imports Foo.Bar.B as B
>> import class Foo.Bar.B
>> // imports Foo.Bar.Baz.C as C
>> import class Foo.Bar.Baz.C
>> A module declaration may only appear as a top-level entity or as a member of another module declaration. The following code is therefore invalid:
>>
>> module Foo {
>> class Bar {
>> module Baz {} // error: module declaration cannot be nested inside type 'Bar'
>> }
>> }
>> To extend an existing module declaration, simply reference its module name in an extension declaration.
>>
>> // In module 'Foo'
>> module Bar {
>> public class A {}
>>
>> module Baz {}
>> }
>>
>> extension Bar {
>> public struct B {}
>> }
>>
>> extension Bar.Baz {
>> public enum C { case D }
>> }
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#modules-and-access-control>Modules and Access Control
>>
>> The semantics of some existing access control modifiers shall also be extended to support module declarations:
>>
>> open and public declarations are exported by a module for consumption by clients of the module.
>> internal declarations scope over the entire module and any derived submodules.
>> By default, to preserve encapsulation of interfaces, modules are "sealed" and may only be "opened" by explicit named import. However, it is often desirable to export a module and a set of submodules or even modules from external dependencies along with a given interface. We propose the public keyword be used for this purpose:
>>
>> // Defines top-level module "Foo"
>> //module Foo {
>> public import Foo.Bar.Baz
>> public import Foundation.Date
>> //}
>> Which then causes the following (sub)modules to be imported into scope along with Foo:
>>
>> // imports Foo, Foo.Bar.Baz, and Foundation.Date
>> import Foo
>> To support existing Swift packages that cannot have opted into modules, and to preserve the scriptable nature of Swift, module declarations shall be optional. Any Swift program that does not declare at least one top-level module explicitly is considered part of an unnamed special "Global Module" with the same rules of access control as today. To give declarations in the Global Module an explicit module without using a module declaration, use the -module-name flag.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#impact-on-existing-code>Impact on Existing Code
>>
>> This proposal is intentionally additive. There is no impact on existing code.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#alternatives-considered>Alternatives considered
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#explicit-modules-everywhere>Explicit Modules Everywhere
>>
>> Declarations in the top-level of a program exist today in the top-level of the corresponding module. If desired, this module declaration could be required to be explicit like so:
>>
>> module Foo {
>> module Bar {
>> module Baz {}
>> }
>> }
>> However, we feel that imposing such a requirement not only complicates the outermost scope, it requires inserting needless extension Foo {} scopes in every file. It also violates the principle of progressive disclosure by forcing all new adoptees of Swift to learn what a module is without actually using the module system.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#nested-extensions>Nested Extensions
>>
>> Nested module extensions may be "expanded" as it were to the following:
>>
>> module Foo {
>> module Bar {}
>> }
>>
>> extension Foo {
>> extension Bar {}
>> }
>> However, this syntax is currently not enabled in general in Swift. This problem should be revisted in a future proposal.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/cd66b7d70b5cd8e4e8b433fa2ace378a#deprecations-source-breaking-changes>Deprecations (Source-Breaking Changes)
>>
>> The system described above is intended to be entirely source and binary compatible. Nonetheless, in its design we feel we have obviated certain existing features and recommend their deprecation in future proposals:
>>
>> fileprivate access can be recreated by creating a private "utility submodule" containing declarations of at least internal access.
>> @_exported, the private directive to re-export modules today, should be deprecated and removed.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto: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/20170220/c0810a07/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list