We've talked about adding the title to the filename several times over the years and it seems really valuable. This requires us to compute a "slug" for the title spelling that can be part of the filename. Beyond that, we crossed 7000 recently, and so it seems likely that we will need to add digits sooner rather than later here, so this goes ahead and moves us to 6 digits so we don't have to adjust again for a reasonable length of time. To implement this and ensure we can sustain it going forward this adds a tool to our pre-commit that validates (and corrects if needed) the filename. In order to update everything and keep links working, there are a _lot_ of changes, but the most interesting for direct review are in `proposals/scripts`. Assisted-by: Antigravity with Gemini --------- Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
9.1 KiB
Constraints must use Self
Table of contents
Abstract
Require impl as constraints in an interface or constraint definition to
mention Self implicitly or explicitly. Require where clauses to refer to
.Self directly, or through a designator like .Foo.
Problem
When trying to implement constraints in Carbon Explorer, we came up with an example that raised questions:
interface A {}
interface B {}
external impl forall [T:! Type] T as A where T is B {}
There were multiple possible interpretations for what the meaning of that
where clause was.
- It could be equivalent to
external impl forall [T:! Type where .Self is B] T as A {}. That is, this introduces an implementation of A for only those T that satisfy the where condition. - It could be equivalent to
external impl forall [T:! Type] T as A {}but invalid if there is noimpl forall [T:! Type] T as B. that is, this requires an implementation ofBto exist for allT. - It could be equivalent to
external impl forall [T:! Type] T as A & B {}. That is, this introduces an implementation ofBfor allT. - It could be invalid for various reasons.
That advantage of making this construction invalid is that it would force the code into a form with a clearer meaning.
Other cases suggested that constraints that were modifying other types were in general surprising, for example:
fn F[A:! Type, B:! Type, C:! Type where A == B](a: A, b: B, c: C);
would be better written as:
fn F[A:! Type, B:! Type where A == .Self, C:! Type](a: A, b: B, c: C);
so the relationship between types A and B would be established from their
two declarations, not later modified by the declaration of C.
In summary, we ended up with a number of reasons to say a where clause should
be a constraint on the type being modified:
- We prefer there only be one way to write constraints. We believe that the examples that don't meet this restriction can always be rewritten to a form that meets this restriction.
- We believe that after the rewrite, there is less ambiguity about what the code means.
- We think it is valuable that the constraints on a type are complete when the type's declaration is complete.
We found similar restrictions are valuable for impl as constraints in an
interface or constraint definition. The restriction that they always involve
the Self type means that the search that compiler has to do to find relevant
constraints is limited to a finite number of definitions. Furthermore, without
this restriction, the set of interfaces known to implement a type would change
depending on which interfaces definitions are imported and known to be
satisfied, which is a coherence problem.
This restriction also allows interfaces and named constraints to be used while incomplete, which allows some use cases that involve circular references, including self reference. The logic goes like this:
- we want to limit when information from a constraint is found,
- to increase the cases where we don't need to look in a constraint,
- so constraints are allowed to be incomplete in those cases.
Proposal #2347 lists conditions when we want to allow constraints to be incomplete.
Background
There are a number of earlier proposals related to or modified by this proposal:
- #553: Generics details part 1
introduced
impl asrestrictions in interfaces and named constraints. - #818: Constraints for generics (generics details 3)
introduce
whereconstraints. - #1013: Generics: Set associated constants using
whereconstraints switched to usingwhereconstraints inimpldeclarations to specify associated constants. - #1084: Generics details 9: forward declarations allowed forward declaration of interfaces and named constraints, explicitly supporting incomplete interfaces and named constraints beyond when they were being defined.
- #2107: Clarify rules around
Selfand.Selfestablished some rules aroundSelfand.Self, which this proposal adds to. - #2347: What can be done with an incomplete interface clarifies what can be done with an incomplete interface or named constraint. Those rules rely on this proposal to be implementable.
Proposal
where clauses must use a designator, either .Self or .Foo for some member
Foo. The designator may be used directly, or supplied as an argument to a
type, interface, or named constraint used in the where clause, as in these
examples:
Container where .ElementType = i32Type where Vector(.Self) is SortableAddable where i32 is AddableWith(.Result)
impl as declarations in interfaces and named constraints must always involve
Self:
- Can be the implicit
Selfwhen no type is specified, as inimpl as ..., or the equivalent declarations withSelfdeclared explicitly, as inimpl Self as ... - Can be an argument to a type. The type can be what is to the left of the
as, as inimpl Vector(Self) as ..., or a type argument to the interface or constraint, as inimpl Vector(i32) as AddWith(Vector(Self)). - Can be a parameter to the interface or constraint to the right of the
as, as inimpl T as Bar(Self).
When the compiler looks to see if any constraints imply that an impl exists, the
only place it needs to look are the places that involve the type the impl is for
(Self). This means the compiler never needs to look in forward-declared (or
otherwise incomplete) constraints that don't involve that type. This applies
recursively. This allows incomplete interfaces and named constraints as
described in proposal
#2347.
This solves a problem: when doing impl lookup, what is the set of imlps that you can look up? There may be an infinite set of constraints reachable through interfaces, but with this rule, you only need to consider a finite subset.
Details
The "Generics: Details" design document has
been updated with this proposal. It includes clarification in the
conditional conformance section
that an impl in a class definition can only be for the type being defined.
Rationale
These restrictions are in support of the "prefer providing only one way to do a given thing" principle, by reducing the number of equivalent ways of expressing a constraint.
As described in the problem section, these restrictions make code easier to read and understand by avoiding confusing or ambiguous constructions.
These restrictions reduce the search the compiler needs to perform to find relevant constraints during impl lookup, in support of fast and scalable development.
Alternatives considered
The main alternative we considered, was not imposing these restrictions. We decided these restrictions were a good idea in these conversations:
- #generics-and-templates on 2022-06-13
- Open discussion on 2022-10-12
- #generics-and-templates 2022-10-24
- 2022-10-24 open discussion
The advantages of this proposal are outlined in the problem section.
The main disadvantage of this proposal that
we considered
is that it removes the option to use another name for the type than .Self. The
concern was that .Self might be seen as an advanced feature that is difficult
to understand, or it might be longer.