[swift-evolution] Enums and Source Compatibility

[Jordan Rose]

As mentioned, the right way to do this is with a struct:

public struct ConnectionDictionaryKey: RawRepresentable, Hashable {
  public var rawValue: String
  public init(rawValue: String) { … }
  public init(_ rawValue: String) { … }
}
extension ConnectionDictionaryKey {
  static let hostName = ConnectionDictionaryKey("hostname")
  static let databaseName = ConnectionDictionaryKey("database")
  // …
}

It is definitely more verbose than an enum, and it may be worth a separate proposal to deal with that! But it is not part of this proposal, and what you're describing isn't really an enum.

Jordan


> On Sep 16, 2017, at 15:51, Kenny Leung via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Oops, forgot something:
> 
> "Can there be a kind of open enum where you can add new cases in extensions?”
> 
> I have a use case for this. I’m trying to write a database ORM with abstract API and concrete instances for different database. So I have defined:
> 
> open class Database {
>    init(connectionDictionary: [ConnectionDictionaryKey:String]) {
>         self.connectionDictionary = connectionDictionary;
>     }
> }
> 
> Where I have ConnectionDictionaryKey defined as an enum, with values like .hostName, .databaseName, .userName, .password, .databaseName, etc…
> 
> But concrete databases may have other options that need to be added to the connection dictionary. It would be nice if they could just extend ConnectionDictionaryKey with new cases.
> 
> -Kenny
> 
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Kenny Leung via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> In general, I agree with everything in the proposal.
>> 
>> I’d like to propose these alternative extensions for clients:
>> 
>> 1) As a client of an enum, I’d like to know in the future when a new value has been added to an enum, since I may have to do something about it. How about adding the “exhaustive” keyword to be used in the switch statement? Like
>> 
>> exhaustive switch excuse {
>>     case eatenByPet:
>>         // …
>>     case thoughtItWasDueNextWeek:
>>         // …
>>     default:
>>         // …
>> }
>> 
>> If exhaustive is used, there would be a warning if all cases aren’t covered *even though default exists*. This means that I as the client thought I had everything covered when I wrote this code.
>> 
>> As already mentioned, this makes the default case un-testable, which brings me to
>> 
>> 2) All non-exhaustive enums should have the pseudo value “default” that can be used just like a regular value. This would allow you to write code like:
>> 
>> teacher.failedToHandInHomework(excuse: .default)
>> 
>> which would allow you to trip the default case in any code you may write.
>> 
>> -Kenny
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 12:17 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Proposal updated, same URL: https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/nnnn-non-exhaustive-enums.md <https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/nnnn-non-exhaustive-enums.md>.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again for all the feedback so far, everyone!
>>> Jordan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 17:55, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I got distracted by other tasks! Both the discussion here and within Apple has moved towards making "non-exhaustive" the default, which, to be honest, I too think is the best design. I'll update the proposal today to reflect that, though I still want to keep both the "nonexhaustive" and "exhaustive" keywords for Swift 4 compatibility for now (or whatever we end up naming them). The compatibility design is a little less ambitious than Brent's; as currently proposed, Swift 4 mode continues to default to 'exhaustive' all the time, even in the actual Swift 5 release.
>>>> 
>>>> I still want to respond to Brent's points directly, but I think you and Vladimir have done a good job discussing them already. I'll send out the updated proposal tomorrow, after I have a little more time to think about #invalid.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for putting time into this!
>>>> Jordan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 17:34, Rod Brown <rodney.brown6 at icloud.com <mailto:rodney.brown6 at icloud.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jordan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you have any other thoughts about the ongoing discussion here, especially regarding Chris’ comments? As you’re the one pushing this forward, I’d really like to know what your thoughts are regarding this?
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Rod
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto: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/20170918/ea9c1a63/attachment.html>