[swift-evolution] History and future of Swift's parentheses

[Jens Persson]

The analogy of the special first parameter label was relevant (for me) in
that it was a special rule that was invented to resolve a problem/situation
with no clear best solution. Probably most people agree now that the
current simpler and more uniform rule set for parameter labels are
obviously better. It was possible to escape the ugly special case of the
first parameter, after all.

Similarly, I wonder if the parentheses-related mess actually can be simpler
and more uniform, after all. I remember a lot of discussions in which
people argued that Swift couldn't and/or shouldn't get rid of the special
first parameter label rules.

I'm not a compiler hacker and I have no idea exactly what aspects of the
language is easy/hard/impossible to change once Swift is binary stable.

My concrete concerns are that the messy parentheses-related parts of the
language will continue to be messy for ever.
I have no idea if there is any actual reason to worry about that, but ABI
stability was originally intended for Swift 3, and then it was postponed
because some stuff needed to be done before ABI stability. Now I'm just
worried that solving the parentheses situation is something that needs to
be done before ABI stability. Please correct/enlighten me!

/Jens



On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Michael Ilseman <milseman at apple.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Jens Persson via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> The point of exercise 1 is to show that it is impossible (in Swift 4) to
> write a generic function composition operator (or function) which works as
> expected for any reasonable functions.
> This was possible in Swift 3, but in Swift 4 it will only work for
> functions with exactly one parameter. You'd have to special-case it for
> every combination of parameter counts of f and g that it should be able to
> handle.
>
> The following program demonstrates how it can be done in Swift 3.1 and 3.2:
>
> func compose<T, U, V>(_ g: @escaping (U) -> V, _ f: @escaping (T) -> U) ->
> (T) -> V {
>     return { x in g(f(x)) }
> }
> func sum(_ a: Int, _ b: Int) -> Int { return a + b }
> func square(_ a: Int) -> Int { return a * a }
> let squaredSum = compose(square, sum)
> let result = squaredSum((3, 4)) // A bit unexepected with a tuple here but
> ok ...
> print(result) // 49
> // Well, it worked, not flawlessly but we did manage to write
> // a function composition function and we composed sum
> // and square, and we could call it and get a correct result.
>
>
> And this program demonstrates what happens if you try it in Swift 4:
>
> func compose<T, U, V>(_ g: @escaping (U) -> V, _ f: @escaping (T) -> U) ->
> (T) -> V {
>     return { x in g(f(x)) }
> }
> func sum(_ a: Int, _ b: Int) -> Int { return a + b }
> func square(_ a: Int) -> Int { return a * a }
> // let squaredSum = compose(square, sum) // Error! (without the
> compose-variant below)
>
> // The error message is:
> // Cannot convert value of type `(Int, Int) -> Int` to
> // expected argument type `(_) -> _`
>
> // That's it, it is simply not possible!
>
> // You'd have to write special variants of the compose func for every
> combination
> // of parameter counts! For example, in order to get this sum and square
> // example working, this specific variant must be written:
> func compose<T, U, V, W>(_ g: @escaping (V) -> W, _ f: @escaping (T, U) ->
> V) -> (T, U) -> W {
>     return { (x, y) in g(f(x, y)) }
> }
> // Now it will work:
> let squaredSum = compose(square, sum)
> // But only thanks to that awfully specific compose func variant ...
> // We would have to write a lot more variants for it to be practically
> usable on pretty much any common function.
>
> I'm sure some will say:
> "no regular developers use function composition anyway so why ..."
> or
> "It's not very swifty to use free functions and higher order functions
> like that."
>
> My answer is that this is just a simple but telling example. The issue (as
> I see it) exists in all situations involving generics and function types.
>
> I'm a regular programmer and I like to be able to write basic, useful
> abstractions.
> It's no fun when the language forces you to write lots of specific
> variants of your generic code.
>
> I would feel less worried about the parentheses situation if the language
> was going in a direction where you could see how this simple exercise would
> be a no brainer.
>
> Can Swift's parentheses-situation be sorted out before ABI stability?
> Otherwise it would be a bit like if Swift had kept the special rule for
> the first parameter, only much worse.
>
>
> Out of curiosity, how do you think this would impact ABI? What are your
> concrete concerns here?
>
> I don't think the analogy of first parameter label is relevant, as that
> needn't be ABI.
>
> /Jens
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan <gor at gyolchanyan.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, except why would you need to define `((A, B)) -> C`?, If you need to
>> pass a 2-element tuple into a function that takes two parameters - you can!
>> If you want to pass two values into a function that  *looks* like it takes
>> a single 2-element tuple - you can! Seems to me that the difference between
>> `((A, B)) -> C` and `(A, B) -> C` is virtually non-existent. But keep in
>> mind that this only works for bare tuples (the ones that can't have
>> labels). Non-closure functions DO have labels, which is part of their
>> signature, so this is a different story.
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Gwendal Roué <gwendal.roue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 9 juin 2017 à 17:12, Gor Gyolchanyan via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> So I wonder if any of you have had any thoughts about what Swift's
>> parentheses-related future (or evolutionary baggage) will be?
>>
>>
>> I really wish swift used the concept of tuples **exclusively** for all
>> purposes that involve parentheses, as well as dividing tuples into two
>> categories:
>> - Bare tuples, which do not have labels.
>> - Rich tuples, which do.
>> As a consequence, here's a list of statements that would become true:
>> - All functions take exactly one parameter, which is a tuple.
>> - All closures (a.k.a. function pointers) take exactly one parameter,
>> which is a bare tuple.
>> - All functions return exactly one parameter, which is a tuple.
>> - Pattern matching is done on a single bare tuple using a single bare
>> tuple pattern.
>>
>> The currently ongoing proposal to make a single-element tuple
>> auto-flatten would work extremely well with this idea, by making all these
>> changes completely backward-compatible.
>>
>>
>> If I have well understood, Swift has evolved away from this.
>>
>> If what you describe were true, added to the fact that there is no such
>> thing as a one-element tuple in the language, then (A,B) -> C and ((A, B))
>> -> C could not be distinguished, for the simple reason that ((A, B)) -> C
>> could not be defined.
>>
>> For ((A, B)) -> C to be defined, we'd need a function that takes exactly
>> one parameter, which is a tuple (your idea), whose single element is a
>> tuple (oops, there is no single-valued tuples).
>>
>> No opinion here, just they way I have understood recent Swift history.
>> Gwendal
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170610/7292ff2e/attachment.html>