Many languages which adopt the concept of value types don't allow subclassing
for those, and so does Swift.
Inheritance for structs is more complex than inheritance for classes, but the
"final" limitation isn't the only possible solution, and Dave Abrahams told me
in another thread that changing this rule might be considered in the future —
so I'll risk getting taunted by the cool kids who are in favor of eliminating
all ancient OOP-ideas ;-) and start a discussion.
I guess most readers know about the low-level problems that arise when we
switch from pointers (always the same size) to value types (size may vary), so
I'll start with two possibilities for struct subtyping:
newtype (see https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/moretypes.html
<https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/moretypes.html> — or just read on if you are
scared by Haskell ;-)
When a subtype does not add any stored properties to its superclass (memory
layout doesn't change), there is no difference at the level of object code —
only the type checker may stop you from using those two types interchangeably.
Some use cases:
- In Cocoa, there is no separate class for (file system) paths; instead, there
are some additions to NSString. String doesn't have those abilities, and imho
methods like "stringByAppendingPathExtension" deserve a separate Path-struct,
so that those special methods don't pollute the method list of String (URL is
the future, so that example is somewhat out-of date).
- You could impose incompatibility on numeric types to ensure that your
calculations use correct quantities. Although this can be annoying (Float vs.
CGFloat), decorating numbers with quantity/unit could eliminate bugs that had
really disastrous consequences in the past.
- Increased comfort for floating-point math:
struct CustomDouble: Double
func == (a: CustomDouble, b: CustomDouble) -> Bool {
return abs(a.value - b.value) < 0.01
}
(no need to specify tolerance for each comparison)
Full subtyping
As long as you don't cross module borders, it wouldn't be that complicated to
add inheritance without restrictions.
imagine you have a "Customer"-type and a "Employee"-type to store personal data
(name, address…).
Those data objects are perfect candidates to be implemented as structs, but
they also cry for a "Person"-superclass, so you are forced to either duplicate
code, or to implement your objects as reference types.
In a real proposal, I would include more details on the problems caused by this
feature, but I'd like to see some feedback first.
Best regards,
Tino_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
