Should a type be able to declare an impl to be private, like it can for its
data and methods? There are some use cases for this feature, but those use cases
generally could also be addressed by implementing the interface on a private
adapter type instead.
Private impls have been considered but not implemented for Swift in the scoped conformances pitch.
This is a proposal to add to this design document on generics details. The additions are:
We decided to make generics coherent as part of accepting proposal #24: generics goals. This approach is consistent with broader Carbon goals that Carbon have code that is easy to read, understand, and write. In particular, we favor making code less context sensitive.
We considered supporting private impls for public types. This was motivated by
using the conversion of a struct type to a class type to construct class
values. In the case that the class had private data members, we wanted to
restrict that conversion so it was only available in the bodies of class members
or friends of the class. We considered achieving that goal by saying that the
implementation of the conversion would be private in that case. Allowing impls
to generally be private, though, led to a number of coherence concerns that the
same code would behave differently in different files. Our solution was to
address these conversions using a different approach that only addressed the
conversion use case:
struct to class conversions themselves.struct to class conversions for constructing
class values itself.We believe that other use cases for restricting access to an impl are better accomplished by using a private adapter type than supporting private impls.
A private interface may only be implemented by a single library, which gives the library full control. We considered and rejected the idea that developers could put that interface declaration in an API file to allow it to be referenced in named constraints available to users. All impls for that interface would also have to be declared in the API file, unless they were for a private type declared in that library.
This would allow you to express things like:
A named constraint that is satisfied for any type not implementing
interface Foo:
class TrueType {}
class FalseType {}
private interface NotFooImpl {
let IsFoo:! Type;
}
impl [T:! Foo] T as NotFooImpl {
let IsFoo:! Type = TrueType;
}
impl [T:! Type] T as NotFooImpl {
let IsFoo:! Type = FalseType;
}
constraint NotFoo {
extends NotFooImpl where .IsFoo == FalseType;
}
A named constraint that ensures CommonType is implemented symmetrically:
// For users to implement for types
interface CommonTypeWith(U:! Type) {
let Result:! Type where ...;
}
// internal library detail
private interface AutoCommonTypeWith(U:! Type) {
let Result:! Type where ...;
}
// To use as the requirement for parameters
constraint CommonType(U:! AutoCommonTypeWith(Self)) {
extends AutoCommonTypeWith(U) where .Result == U.Result;
}
match_first {
impl [T:! Type, U:! ManualCommonTypeWith(T)]
T as AutoCommonTypeWith(U) {
let Result:! auto = U.Result;
}
impl [T:! Type, U:! ManualCommonTypeWith(T)]
U as AutoCommonTypeWith(T) {
let Result:! auto = U.Result;
}
}
This feature is something we might consider adding in the future.