[swift-evolution] Pitch: Restrict Cross-module Struct Initializers

[Jordan Rose]

Thanks for bringing this up. I thought of this only after posting the proposal, and I think the answer ought to be "you're exempt from this restriction if you use `@testable import`". I still want to work out that this is implementable even for future frameworks with binary compatibility concerns (though the testable-only parts don't have to be a binary-compatible interface), but you're right that the proposal isn't really complete without that exception. I'll add it today.

Jordan


> On Oct 8, 2017, at 12:49, Rudolf Adamkovič via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> This is a great proposal.
> 
> However, it can make unit testing problematic. Let me explain.
> 
> In my unit tests, I often add initializers that set stored properties directly to create structs with desired data and those are then fed into the struct that’s under test. This is to test in complete isolation, without invoking the “production” initializer of structs that aren’t under test. In other words, I want to avoid invoking any behavior of structs that aren’t directly under test.
> 
> Would the rules described in this proposal be enforced also for testing targets/modules?
> 
> R+
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 7 Oct 2017, at 23:44, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 6, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> While working on the non-exhaustive enums proposal I had it pointed out to me that structs actually currently leak implementation details across module boundaries, specifically their full set of stored properties. This only comes up in one place: when making an initializer for the struct in an extension in another module. We really want people to be able to change the stored properties in their structs between releases without it being a source break—that's half the point of computed properties—and it's also important for a struct author to be able to enforce invariants across the struct's properties. So after talking to a few other Apple Swift folks I put together this proposal:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/restrict-cross-module-struct-initializers/proposals/nnnn-restrict-cross-module-struct-initializers.md <https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/restrict-cross-module-struct-initializers/proposals/nnnn-restrict-cross-module-struct-initializers.md>
>>> 
>>> This one's way smaller than the enum one, and hopefully fairly uncontroversial. Feedback welcome!
>> 
>> Great catch, +1 to the proposal!
>> 
>> Please add the point Xiodi mentions to the writing though so that the review cycle adequately discusses it.  A "fragile struct” (for some definition of fragility), but definitely including C structs, will have knowable stored properties, and it isn’t clear that these should be subjected to this restriction.  The win of the restriction in that case is the invariant point you’re making.  It is best to address this head-on in the writing, and mention the alternate approach in the ‘alternatives considered’ section (along with why you think you’ve picked the right choice).
>> 
>> -Chris
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171009/5991a24f/attachment.html>