-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
SIP-NN - Match infix & prefix types to meet expression rules #674
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
c75ad08
5eb415c
1d6b25c
4a7f32d
4638248
2659193
6719504
d219232
84d5cc5
7750b93
57f8d0a
9d24b3c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ | ||
--- | ||
layout: sip | ||
disqus: true | ||
title: SIP-NN - Match infix & prefix types to meet expression rules | ||
--- | ||
|
||
**By: Oron Port** | ||
|
||
## History | ||
|
||
| Date | Version | | ||
|---------------|--------------------------| | ||
| Feb 7th 2017 | Initial Draft | | ||
| Feb 9th 2017 | Updates from feedback | | ||
| Feb 10th 2017 | Updates from feedback | | ||
|
||
Your feedback is welcome! If you're interested in discussing this proposal, head over to [this](https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/sip-nn-make-infix-type-alias-precedence-like-expression-operator-precedence/471) Scala Contributors thread and let me know what you think. | ||
|
||
--- | ||
## Introduction | ||
Currently scala allows symbol operators (`-`, `*`, `~~>`, etc.) for both type names and definition names. | ||
Unfortunately, there is a 'surprise' element since the two differ in behaviour: | ||
|
||
###Infix operator precedence and associativity | ||
Infix types are 'mostly' left-associative, | ||
while the expression operation precedence is determined by the operator's first character (e.g., `/` is precedent to `+`). | ||
Please see [Infix Types](http://scala-lang.org/files/archive/spec/2.12/03-types.html#infix-types) and [Infix Operations](http://scala-lang.org/files/archive/spec/2.12/06-expressions.html#infix-operations) sections of the Scala specifications for more details. | ||
|
||
**Example**: | ||
```scala | ||
object InfixExpressionPrecedence { | ||
case class Nummy(expand : String) { | ||
def + (that : Nummy) : Nummy = Nummy(s"Plus[$this,$that]") | ||
def / (that : Nummy) : Nummy = Nummy(s"Div[$this,$that]") | ||
} | ||
object N1 extends Nummy("N1") | ||
object N2 extends Nummy("N2") | ||
object N3 extends Nummy("N3") | ||
object N4 extends Nummy("N4") | ||
//Both expand to Plus[Plus[N1,Div[N2,N3]],N4] | ||
assert((N1 + N2 / N3 + N4).expand == (N1 + (N2 / N3) + N4).expand) | ||
} | ||
object InfixTypePrecedence { | ||
trait Plus[N1, N2] | ||
trait Div[N1, N2] | ||
type +[N1, N2] = Plus[N1, N2] | ||
type /[N1, N2] = Div[N1, N2] | ||
trait N1 | ||
trait N2 | ||
trait N3 | ||
trait N4 | ||
//Error! | ||
//Left expands to Plus[Plus[N1,Div[N2,N3]],N4] (Surprising) | ||
//Right expands to Plus[Div[Plus[N1,N2],N3],N4] | ||
implicitly[(N1 + N2 / N3 + N4) =:= (N1 + (N2 / N3) + N4)] | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
###Prefix operators bracketless unary use | ||
While expressions have prefix unary operators, there are none for types. See the [Prefix Operations](http://scala-lang.org/files/archive/spec/2.12/06-expressions.html#prefix-operations) section of the Scala specification. | ||
This is a lacking feature of the type language Scala offers. See also interactions of this feature with other Scala features, further down this text. | ||
|
||
|
||
**Example**: | ||
```scala | ||
object PrefixExpression { | ||
case class Nummy(expand : String) { | ||
def unary_- : Nummy = Nummy(s"-$this") | ||
def unary_~ : Nummy = Nummy(s"~$this") | ||
def unary_! : Nummy = Nummy(s"!$this") | ||
def unary_+ : Nummy = Nummy(s"+$this") | ||
} | ||
object N extends Nummy("N") | ||
val n1 = -N | ||
val n2 = ~N | ||
val n3 = !N | ||
val n4 = +N | ||
} | ||
object NonExistingPrefixTypes { | ||
trait unary_-[A] | ||
trait unary_~[A] | ||
trait unary_![A] | ||
trait unary_+[A] | ||
trait N | ||
type N1 = -N //Not working | ||
type N2 = ~N //Not working | ||
type N3 = !N //Not working | ||
type N4 = +N //Not working | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
--- | ||
## Proposal | ||
The proposal is split into two; type infix precedence, and prefix unary types. Note to the SIP committee: It might be better to vote on the two parts separately. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It looks like the two features that you propose are related. However, I wonder if it would be better that you submit two different proposals. As the SIP Committee Lead, I would suggest that we do it this way because it's conceptually simpler -- if one is accepted and the other one is not, we'll be able to mark one of the documents in our official website as approved. This way, it wouldn't be neither approved nor rejected and it would be confusing to keep track of it. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it possible to do the following? Not to separate them, but if the committee approves one but not the other then I will split the SIP into two to allow marking them separately. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Let's do it this way, yes. We'll see how this experiment goes, we haven't actually had this situation happened yet. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well you did approve meta while requesting it to be split into two SIPs. In that case, though, the condition was that they both were still coupled together. In this SIP I want both parts to be approved, but I understand that changing infix precedence is much more likely to be approved than adding prefix types. |
||
|
||
### Proposal, Part 1: Infix type precedence & associativity | ||
Make infix types conform to the same precedence and associativity traits as expression operations. | ||
### Proposal, Part 2: Prefix unary types | ||
Add prefix types, exactly as specified for prefix expression. | ||
|
||
|
||
--- | ||
## Motivation | ||
The general motivation is developers expect terms and types to behave equally regarding operation precedence and availability of unary types. | ||
|
||
### Motivating examples | ||
#### Dotty infix type similarity | ||
Dotty infix type associativity and precedence seem to act the same as expressions. | ||
No documentation available to prove this, but the infix example above works perfectly in dotty. | ||
|
||
Dotty has no prefix types, same as Scalac. | ||
|
||
#### Singleton-ops library example | ||
The [singleton-ops library](https://github.com/fthomas/singleton-ops) with [Typelevel Scala](https://github.com/typelevel/scala) (which implemented [SIP-23](http://docs.scala-lang.org/sips/pending/42.type.html)) enables developers to express literal type operations more intuitively. | ||
For example: | ||
```scala | ||
import singleton.ops._ | ||
|
||
val four1 : 4 = implicitly[2 + 2] | ||
val four2 : 2 + 2 = 4 | ||
val four3 : 1 + 3 = implicitly[2 + 2] | ||
|
||
class MyVec[L] { | ||
def doubleSize = new MyVec[2 * L] | ||
def nSize[N] = new MyVec[N * L] | ||
} | ||
object MyVec { | ||
implicit def apply[L](implicit check : Require[L > 0]) : MyVec[L] = new MyVec[L]() | ||
} | ||
val myVec : MyVec[10] = MyVec[4 + 1].doubleSize | ||
val myBadVec = MyVec[-1] //fails compilation, as required | ||
``` | ||
We currently loose some of the intuitive appeal due to the precedence issue: | ||
```scala | ||
val works : 1 + (2 * 3) + 4 = 11 | ||
val fails : 1 + 2 * 3 + 4 = 11 //left associative:(((1+2)*3)+4))) = 13 | ||
``` | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you expand more on this motivation? Also, can you rename the title There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a subsection within the Motivation section. Is that not enough?
OK, will modify text to reflect that. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, good enough. |
||
|
||
#### Developer issues example | ||
The following stackoverflow question demonstrate developers are 'surprised' by the difference in infix precedence, expecting infix type precedence to act the same as expression operations. | ||
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23333882/scala-infix-type-aliasing-for-2-type-parameters | ||
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Interactions with other language features | ||
|
||
#### Variance Annotation | ||
Variance annotation uses the `-` and `+` symbols to annotate contravariant and covariant subtyping, respectively. Introducing unary prefix types may lead to some developer confusion. | ||
E.g. | ||
```scala | ||
trait Negate[A] | ||
trait Positive[A] | ||
type unary_-[A] = Negate[A] | ||
type unary_+[A] = Positive[A] | ||
trait Contravariant[B, -A <: -B] //contravariant A subtype upper-bounded by Negate[B] | ||
trait Covariant[B, +A <: +B] //covariant A subtype upper-bounded by Positive[B] | ||
``` | ||
|
||
#### Negative Literal Types | ||
Negative literal types are annotated using the `-` symbol. This can lead to the following confusion: | ||
```scala | ||
trait Negate[A] | ||
type unary_-[A] = Negate[A] | ||
trait MyTrait[B] | ||
|
||
type MinusFortyTwo = MyTrait[-42] | ||
type NegateFortyTwo = MyTrait[Negate[42]] | ||
``` | ||
The above example demonstrates a case of two types `MinusFortyTwo` and `NegateFortyTwo` which are different. They may be equivalent in view (implicit conversion between the two type instances), but they are not equal. | ||
|
||
Note: It is not possible to annotate a positive literal type in Scala (checked both in TLS and Dotty): | ||
```scala | ||
val a : 42 = +42 //works | ||
val b : -42 = -42 //works | ||
val c : +42 = 42 //error: ';' expected but integer literal found | ||
``` | ||
This means that if unary prefix types are added, then `+42` will be a type expansion of `unary_+[42]`. | ||
|
||
--- | ||
|
||
## Backward Compatibility | ||
Changing infix type associativity and precedence affects code that uses type operations and conforms to the current specification. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. FTR, it would be very interesting to see how often type alias precedence is used. If you really care about this (and want to enrich the proposal with high-quality data that helps the Committee decide), you can explore it using Scala Meta. Run it it common Scala projects and give us some stats (note that this is optional 😉). |
||
|
||
--- | ||
|
||
### Bibliography | ||
[Scala Contributors](https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/sip-nn-make-infix-type-alias-precedence-like-expression-operator-precedence/471) | ||
|
||
[scala-sips](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-sips/ARVf1RLDw9U) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think "Left" and "Right" are mixed up here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. Fixed that in #855