mirror of
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang.git
synced 2026-09-24 22:02:23 +01:00
Jon Ross-PerkinsandDana Jansens
5e3bb523f8
This is in support of a goal of changing the blanket `destroy` impl to
use (roughly):
```
private fn CanAggregateDestroy() -> type = "type.can_aggregate_destroy";
// Handles aggregate type destruction.
impl forall [AggregateDestroyT:! CanAggregateDestroy()] AggregateDestroyT as Destroy {
fn Op[addr self: Self*]() = "type.aggregate_destroy";
}
```
That isn't done here because there's still other issues that migrating
raises. What this *does* do is add the builtin functions, and in
particular, support to `FacetTypeInfo` to make `CanAggregateDestroy`
work.
The "special requirement" approach in `FacetTypeInfo` allows us to
support restricting a blanket impl under the current approach of impls.
Maybe we'll find a cleaner approach that can work in the future, but
this fits into the current model by propagating similar to other
requirements. I'm using an enum mask because we have a number of similar
things to add (e.g. copy, move) but I'm not sure we need a full vector.
A few alternatives considered were:
- Supporting syntax more like `where .Self impls
TypeCanAggregateDestroy(.Self, SupportedInterface,
UnsupportedInterface)`. I think it'd be a little cleaner, but requires
better compile-time evaluation in order to assess the type of the call.
Right now it's expected to be a `FacetType` too early to make this work,
and I was concerned about pouring too much more time down this route.
- Providing an actual interface, in particular doing name lookup back
into `Core.` for an interface. This would've added name lookup overhead,
and the question of whether an `impl` exists.
- Generating an interface. This avoids the name lookup, but would still
raise the question of whether an `impl` should also be generated. Work
I've previously done generating interfaces for class destruction also
feels complex to both write and understand (an unfortunate issue).
- Still modeling as an `ImplsConstraint`, for example by defining a
special `InterfaceId::CanAggregateDestroy = -2` similar to what we do on
other ids. I was hesitant because of how this expands the number of
modes of `InterfaceId`, and things for consuming code to watch out for,
for what feels like a relatively niche set of use-cases that are only
interface-like.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dana Jansens <danakj@orodu.net>