[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Associated Type and Generic One-to-One Mapping

[David Moore]

protocol Bondable {
    associatedtype Key
    associatedtype Value

    static func new() -> Self

    func value(forKey key: Key) -> Value?

    mutating func updateValue(_ value: Value?, forKey key: Key)
}

extension Dictionary: Bondable {
    static func new() -> Dictionary<Key, Value> {
        return Dictionary<Key, Value>()
    }

    func value(forKey key: Key) -> Value? {
        return self[key]
    }

    mutating func updateValue(_ value: Value?, forKey key: Key) {
        self[key] = value
    }
}

struct Bridge<A, B> {
    struct Getter {
        var transform: ((B) -> A?)
    }

    struct Setter {
        var transform: ((A) -> B?)
    }

    var get: Getter
    var set: Setter
}

protocol Bonding {
    associatedtype Dictionary: Bondable
    associatedtype Value

    var key: Dictionary.Key { get set }

    var bridge: Bridge<Value, Dictionary.Value> { get set }

    func value(from aDictionary: Dictionary, using set: Bridge<Value, Dictionary.Value>.Getter) -> Value?

    func addValue(_ value: Value, to aDictionary: inout Dictionary, using get: Bridge<Value, Dictionary.Value>.Setter)
}

extension Bonding {

    func value(from aDictionary: Dictionary, using get: Bridge<Value, Dictionary.Value>.Getter) -> Value? {
        if let value = aDictionary.value(forKey: key) {
            return get.transform(value)
        } else {
            return nil

        }
    }

    func addValue(_ value: Value, to aDictionary: inout Dictionary, using set: Bridge<Value, Dictionary.Value>.Setter) {
        aDictionary.updateValue(set.transform(value), forKey: key)
    }
}

struct ComplexBond<__Dictionary: Bondable, __Value>: Bonding {
    typealias Dictionary = __Dictionary
    typealias Value = __Value

    var key: __Dictionary.Key

    var bridge: Bridge<__Value, __Dictionary.Value>
}

The above is an example implementation of the `Bonding` protocol, where the preexisting names of the associated types, `Dictionary` and `Value`, are already appropriately named. It would be great if I could just add a simple keyword prefixing the `typealias` keyword which would enable the inferencing behavior.

On Jun 23, 2017, 8:36 PM -0400, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com>, wrote:
> Yes, examples will be helpful.
>
>
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 19:28 David Moore via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > > I do indeed have quite a few real examples of this, such prompted me to bring this up. I think this could be done without any impact to existing code, but it would require some type of keyword. Take the following as a possible prototype.
> > >
> > > protocol Foo {
> > >     associatedtype T
> > > }
> > >
> > > struct Bar<T> : Foo {
> > >     keyword typealias T // Or really any other syntactical implementation.
> > > }
> > >
> > > With an opt-in method we could implement this without affecting existing code, thereby making this more viable. I will send some examples later.
> > >
> > > On Jun 23, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There could be source-breaking implications for such a feature, especially with retroactive conformance. Therefore, I think this could be very tricky and I'd want to be convinced that the benefits are very great to risk such a disturbance. Here, I think the problem is rather mild, and here's why:
> > > >
> > > > It is true that, in your example specifically, renaming T to U is the only solution (that I know of, anyway). However, for any "serious" protocol P, there's likely to be a required property of type P.T, or a function that takes an argument of type P.T or returns a value of type P.T. Therefore, implementing that requirement in Bar with a corresponding property/argument/return value of type Bar.T would generally do the trick.
> > > >
> > > > Have you got any real-world examples where you're running into this issue?
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 17:03 David Moore via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Swift Evolution,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This may have already been discussed before, but I just came across a bothersome language aspect which reminded me to propose a solution. Currently, if we want to add generics to a protocol the only way to do so is with associated types. I am quite fine with the current approach with respect to those semantics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is, however, a weakness that is built in with using associated types. That weakness is the lack of associated type and generic inference. To be more clear about what I mean, take the following as an example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > protocol Foo {
> > > > > >     associatedtype T
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The foregoing protocol is quite basic, but uses an associated type with the name “T.” Giving the associated type that name will illustrate the dilemma encountered later on down the pipeline.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct Bar<T> : Foo {
> > > > > >     // What am I supposed to do? The name is used for both the generic and the type alias Foo needs for conformance.
> > > > > >     typealias T = T // Error!
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above illustrates a situation where we want to connect the generic, which is supposedly named appropriately, and the protocol’s associated type. There is no elegant solution for this at the moment. All I could do is the following.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct Bar<U> : Foo {
> > > > > >     typealias T = U // Not nearly as readable.
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, there may be a few ways to go about adding support for generic inference. The compiler as it is already does some awesome inference get when it comes to generics, so why not take it a step further? I propose the introduction of a keyword, or anything else that could work, to specify explicitly what a given type alias declaration would do when it comes to inferencing. Requiring a keyword would ensure source compatibility remains intact, and it would also make the code more readable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don’t know if this would be something that people could find useful, but I surely would. The implicit mapping of an associated type and a given generic by their names, would be a natural development.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me know if this is just useless, or if could be a potential feature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > David Moore
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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/20170623/543a7d88/attachment.html>