swift-mirror/docs/proposals/rejected/Clonable.rst

:orphan:

==========
 Clonable
==========

:Author: Dave Abrahams
:Author: Joe Groff
:Date: 2013-03-21
:Edition: 2

.. warning:: This proposal was rejected. We decided not to introduce a
  language-level copying mechanism for classes.

**Abstract:** to better support the creation of value types, we
propose a "magic" ``Clonable`` protocol and an annotation for describing
which instance variables should be cloned when a type is copied.  This
proposal **augments revision 1** of the Clonable proposal with our
rationale for dropping our support for ``val`` and ``ref``, a
description of the programming model for generics, and a brief
discussion of equality.  It is **otherwise unchanged**.

Rationale
=========

By eliminating ``val``, we lose the easy creation of
runtime-polymorphic value types.  Instead of merely writing::

  val x : MyClass

one has to engage in some kind of wrapping and forwarding::

  struct MyClassVal {
    var [clone] value : MyClass

    constructor(x : A, y : B) {
       value = new MyClass(x, y)
    }

    func someFunction(_ z : C) -> D {
      return value.someFunction(z)
    }

    // ...etc...
  }

Although such wrapping is awful, this is not the only place where one
would want to do it.  Therefore, some kind of ability to forward an
entire interface wholesale could be added as a separate extension
(getter/setter for ``This``?), which would solve more problems.  Then it
would be easy enough to write the wrapper as a generic struct and
``Val<T>`` would be a reality.

By eliminating ``ref``, we lose the easy creation of references to
value types.  However, among those who prefer programming with values,
having an explicit step for dereferencing might make more sense, so we
could use this generic class:

  class Reference<T> { value : T }

If explicit dereferencing isn't desired, there's always manual (or
automatic, if we add that feature) forwarding.

By dropping ``val`` we also lose some terseness aggregating ``class``
contents into ``struct``\ s.  However, since ``ref`` is being dropped
there's less call for a symmetric ``val``.  The extra "cruft" that
``[clone]`` adds actually seems appropriate when viewed as a special
bridge for ``class`` types, and less like a penalty against value
types.

Generics
========

There is actually a straightforward programming model for generics.
If you want to design a generic component where a type parameter ``T``
binds to both ``class``\ es and non-``class`` types, you can view
``T`` as a value type where--as with C pointers--the value is the
reference rather than the object being referred to.

Of course, if ``T`` is only supposed to bind to ``class``\ es, a
different programming model may work just as well.

Implications for Equality
=========================

We think the programming model suggested for generics has some pretty
strong implications for equality of ``class``\ es: ``a == b`` must
return true iff ``a`` and ``b`` refer to the same object.

Details *(unchanged from Revision 1)*
=====================================

When a type with reference semantics ``R`` is to be used as a part of
(versus merely being referred-to-by) a type with value semantics ``V``,
a new annotation, ``[clone]`` can be used to indicate that the ``R``
instance variable should be ``clone()``\ d when ``V`` is copied.

A ``class`` can be ``clone()``\ d when it implements the built-in ``Clonable``
protocol::

  protocol Clonable {
     func clone() -> Self { /* see below */ }
  }

The implementation of ``clone()`` (which will be generated by the
compiler and typically never overridden) performs a primitive copy of
all ordinary instance variables, and a ``clone()`` of all instance
variables marked ``[clone]``::

  class FooValue : Clonable  {}

  class Bar {}

  class Foo : Clonable {
      var count : Int
      var [clone] myValue : FooValue
      var somethingIJustReferTo : Bar
  }

  struct Baz {
      var [clone] partOfMyValue : Foo
      var anotherPart : Int
      var somethingIJustReferTo : Bar
  }

When a ``Baz`` is copied by any of the "big three" operations (variable
initialization, assignment, or function argument passing), even as
part of a larger ``struct``, its ``[clone]`` member is ``clone()``\ d.
Because ``Foo`` itself has a ``[clone]`` member, that is ``clone()``\ d
also.  Therefore copying a ``Baz`` object ``clone()``\ s a ``Foo`` and
``clone()``\ ing a ``Foo`` ``clone()``\ s a ``FooValue``.

All ``struct``\ s are ``Clonable`` by default, with ``clone()`` delivering
ordinary copy semantics.  Therefore, ::

  var x : Baz
  var y = x.clone()

is equivalent to ::

  var x : Baz
  var y = x

Note that ``Clonable`` is the first protocol with a default
implementation that can't currently be written in the standard library
(though arguably we'd like to add the capability to write that
implementation).