search

Draco-lang / Language-suggestions

Collecting ideas for a new .NET language that could replace C#
75 stars 5 forks source link

Pre-RFC user-defined types #126

Open LPeter1997 opened 1 year ago

LPeter1997 commented 1 year ago

User-defined types

This document attempts to describe the datatypes that can be declared in Draco. We will attempt to summarize all "class-related features" of C#, our equivalents and how we would be able to interop with each of them, given that C# interop is an important aspect for us.

Prior issues:

C# features to cover

Here is a loose list of C# features we are trying to cover that is needed for interop, or we intend to carry on because of its value regardless of the necessity (or I just mentioned for consideration). If there is anything missing, please notify under this proposal.

Data types:

Data type modifiers:

Members:

Member modifiers:

Our philosophy

I'd like to take the approach of the ML family of languages here and introduce two main categories of user defined types:

All C# types, except enums (and interfaces) fit into product-types, enums can be considered as a very limited version of sum-types.

There are certain things we can already sort of decide based on our prior philosophy:

Interfaces

I believe one of the simplest places to tackle is interfaces, since there has been a lot of implications about taking heavy inspiration from Rust traits. For now I'd like to propose to leave out associated types intentionally until we have generic constraints fleshed out. That leaves the following features (straight from the traits issue):

An example for all features:

trait IAnimal {
    // Static property
    prop Species(): string { get; }

    // Static method
    // Reference to the implementation type through This
    func make(name: string): This;

    // Nonstatic property
    prop Age(this): int32 { get; set; }

    // Nonstatic method
    func moveTo(this, x: int32, y: int32): bool;

    // Defaulted function
    func cloneTo(this, x: int32, y: int32): This {
        val clone = This.make("my clone");
        clone.moveTo(x, y);
        return clone;
    }
}

Important details to note:

Implementing a trait happens in a separate syntactical construct from the type. It does not even have to be in the same assembly, but either the trait, or the implementing type has to be defined in the assembly providing the implementation. Example:

implement IAnimal for Dog {
    prop Species(): string = "Dog";

    // This and Dog are interchangable once in the implementor type, This is merely an alias for Dog here
    func make(name: string): Dog = Dog(name, "Husky");

    // We could have written
    // func make(name: string): This = This(name, "Husky");

    prop Age(this): int32 {
        get = (DateTime.Now - this.birthDate).Years;
        set { this.birthDate = DateTime.Now - DateTime(value, 0, 0)}
    }

    func moveTo(this, x: int32, y: int32): bool {
        if (this.isObstructedAt(x, y)) return false;
        this.x = x;
        this.y = y;
        return true;
    }
}

Note, that this does not need a var or val modifier. Just like any other parameter, it's implicitly a val.

Trait inheritance

Traits can declare that the implementing type must also implement certain other traits:

trait IAnimal {}

// If a type implements IDog, they must also implement IAnimal
trait IDog : IAnimal {}

Implicit vs explicit implementations, defaulting

C# allows for implementing methods of a trait implicitly or exmplicitly. Furthermore, default members are implemented explicitly, making them painful to utilize well. Note that there is a reason C# does this, to avoid the diamond-inheritance problem:

interface I1
{
    public void Foo() => Console.WriteLine("Hello!");
}
interface I2
{
    public void Foo() => Console.WriteLine("Bye!");
}
struct T : I1, I2 {}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args) => default(T).Foo(); // Ambiguous
}

In our case, we can use the same disambiguation that Rust uses. Since each trait implementation is explicit to its own block, we can disambiguate by calling the defaulted/ambiguous member as a static method of the trait: I1.Foo(default(T)) or I2.Foo(default(T)).

Product types (classes, records, structs)

The usual, general-purpose class declaration is provided under the class keyword. The only syntactic change is that the class is only allowed to declare instance state in its declaration, which means auto-properties (properties automatically backed by fields) and fields. Example:

class Foo {
    // Gettable and settable auto-prop
    // Equivalent C#: int X { get; set; }
    var X: int32;

    // Get-only auto-prop
    // Equivalent C#: int Y { get; }
    val Y: string;

    // Mutable field
    // Equivalent C#: int Z;
    field var Z: int32;

    // Readonly field
    // Equivalent C#: readonly int W;
    field val W: string;
}

Some things to note:

Associating behavior to this class would look like so:

implement Foo {
    // Pretty-printer for instances
    func print(this) =
        Console.WriteLine("Foo(X = \{this.X}; Y = \{this.Y}; Z = \{this.Z}; W = \{this.W})");
}

For value-types (structs), the class can be prefixed with the value keyword:

value class Color {
    field val R: uint8;
    field val G: uint8;
    field val B: uint8;
}

// Equivalent:
// struct Color {
//     byte R;
//     byte G;
//     byte B;
// }

Tuple-classes

From record types in C#, it is obvious that a more lightweight datatype is needed for cases, where all of the state is public, and a constructor would be automatically provided to initialize this state. While the C# record is a little more opinionated in terms of design (as it includes a ToString and equality implementation by default), this basic concept would be worthy enough to add sugar to classes to make POCOs easier to declare. The rest of the record features could be achieved through decorators, which are planned as a more generic solution to implement boilerplate code.

Example:

class Color(val R: int32, val G: int32, val B: int32);

func main() {
    // Construction is a public method
    val c = Color(1, 2, 3);

    // State is public
    WriteLine("\{c.R}, \{c.G}, \{c.B}");
}

The value and open modifiers ase also valid for this construct. The Color constructor in this case is always public.

Inheritance

While inheritance is heavily discouraged, it is unavoidable because of interop with the existing ecosystem. The proposed syntax for inheritance looks exactly like how it looks in C#:

class Derived : Base { ... }

While this might seem like a weird divergence from the commitment to the external trait implementation style, it is necessary. There can only be a single base class, and the base has to be known in the assembly declaring the type.

Draco classes are sealed by default, unlike C# classes, which are open to inheritance by default. Draco classes can be made open for inheritance using the open modifier:

class ClosedBase {}
open class OpenBase { }

// ERROR
// class Derived1 : ClosedBase {}

// Ok
class Derived2 : OpenBase {}

Constructors

We'd like to push logic out from constructors. If there's significant logic involved with a types' construction, one should write a factory function. The construction logic itself should be fairly minimal. Initializer lists sort of facilitate a minimalistic construction, where the sole logic involved is copying some consistent initial state into the new instances' members. For example, constructing the above Foo type would look like so:

val f = Foo {
    X = 0;
    Y = "foo";
    Z = 1;
    W = "bar";
};

The visibility of this constructor/initializer is always private, meaning that factory methods should be exposed for constructing the type from the outside world.

Calling base constructors

Calling the base class constructor can be done by assigning the special member base in the initializer list with one of the base constructor methods:

val d = Derived {
    base = Base(arg1, arg2, ...);
    // other member init...
};

TODO: This implies, that one could write something like:

val d = Derived {
    base = if (x < y) Base(arg1, arg2, ...) else Base(argx, argy, ...);
    // other member init...
};

Which might be something we don't want to, or simply can't support.

Abstract classes

Abstract classes are not central to Draco (because of the flexibility of traits), so their design solely serves interop with C#. An abstract class can be generated from a trait using an attribute:

@abstractClass("Person")
trait IPerson {
    // TODO: What to do with static abstract members?
    // AFAIK they can not be parts of abstract classes?
    func create(name: string): IPerson;

    prop Name(this): string { get; }

    func greet(this);

    func sayGoodbye(this) {
        Console.WriteLine("Bye \{this.Name}");
    }
}

Which generates the following class in metadata:

abstract class Person : IPerson
{
    // TODO: See above
    // static IPerson create(string name)

    abstract string Name { get; }

    abstract void greet();

    virtual void sayGoodbye() {
        (this as IPerson).sayGoodbye();
    }
}

Sum types (DUs, enums)

Discriminated unions take heavy inspiration from Rust enums. In general, they take the following shape:

enum Expr {
    // Stateless field, like a C# enum member
    Void;

    // Tuple-like variant
    Add(val Left: Expr, val Right: Expr);

    // Class-like variant
    Call {
        field val method: string;
        field val args: List<Expr>;
    };
}

The members within the enum declaration directly follow the same logic as classes, only instance state is declared. Note, that this declaration is a reference type, unlike enums in C# by default (see the C# equivalent later).

Behavior can be associated the same way, as for classes:

implement Expr {
    // ...
}

Value-type enums can be declared the same way as classes, by prefixing with value:

value enum Foo { ... }

Variant tag, backing type

The "tag-value" (the field marking what number is assocaiated with the alternative) can be specified with = constant, like in C#:

enum Expr {
    Void = 1;
    Add(val Left: Expr, val Right: Expr) = 2;
    Call {
        field val method: string;
        field val args: List<Expr>;
    } = 3;
}

The backing tag field type can be changed in the declaration itself using the inheritance syntax:

enum Expr : int16 {
    // ...
}

C# compatibility

C# enums can be declared by defining a value enum, where no members are compound types. Example:

value enum Color : int8 {
    Red = 1;
    Green = 2;
    Blue = 3;
}

The equivalent C# would be:

enum Color : int8 {
    Red = 1,
    Green = 2,
    Blue = 3,
}

Properties

Auto-properties

Auto-properties take two forms, var Name: Type for get-set, and val Name: Type for get-only properties:

var Foo: int32;
// Equivalent C#: int Foo { get; set; }

val Bar: int32;
// Equivalent C#: int Bar { get; }

Custom properties

Static properties take the form (within implement blocks):

prop Foo(): int32 {
    get { ... }
    set { ... }
}

The getter needs to return int32, and the setter implicitly receives a value: int32 parameter, similarly to C#.

The usual = expr sugar is available for both the getter and setter blocks:

prop Foo(): int32 {
    get = ...;
    set = ...;
}

Nonstatic properties only differ in receiving the this parameter in the property signature:

prop Age(this): int32 {
    get = (DateTime.Now - this.birthDate).Years;
    set { this.birthDate = DateTime.Now - DateTime(value, 0, 0)}
}

Computed get-only properties have sugar in the following form:

prop Age(this): int32 = (DateTime.Now - this.birthDate).Years;

// Equivalent C#:
// int Age => (DateTime.Now - this.birthDate).Years;

In interfaces, properties often need to annotate what accessors they have without computing anything, for this the get/set accessors are not followed by expression or block, but only by ;:

prop Foo(): int32 { get; set; }
prop Bar(this): int32 { get; }

Visibility

The visibility of properties is a bit more complicated topic, because sometimes the accessors need to have different visibilities declared. C# solves this by allowing to declare a visibility for the properties, and then restrict the individual accessors.

For the sake of simplicity - and to avoid introducing an explicit private visibility modifier when the rest of the design is built around implicit private, I'd like to propose the following:

While the latter would be enough to cover all cases, having properties with the same visibility for all its accessors is common enough to justify the shortcut. Specifying visibility for both the property and the accessors is illegal.

Some examples:

Static state

Non-member, static data can be associated to types in the implement blocks. For example, adding a static instance counter field to the type Foo:

implement Foo {
    field var InstanceCount: int32;
}

Operators

Since .NET 7, a bunch of interfaces have been introduced to model operators inside System.Numerics. I'd like to propose that instead of custom syntax, we'd treat operators as trait implementations:

An example:

struct Vector2 {
    var X: int32;
    var Y: int32;
}

// NOTE: We could tackle eliminating CRTP implicitly since we have This type anyway
implement IAdditionOperators<Vector2, Vector2> for Vector2 {
    func Addition(left: This, rigt: This): This = Vector2 {
        X = left.X + right.X;
        Y = left.Y + right.Y;
    };
}

Indexers

Indexers are a little special in a way, they are modeled as parameterized properties in the .NET world. In itself that would not be a problem, interfaces/traits can declare properties. The problematic part here is twofold:

Because of that, I propose that indexers should stay regular properties. Since our property syntax already looks like functions, we can easily add parameters. For indexers especially, we could reserve a special name, like index. Example:

class My2DArray {
    field val underlying: Array<Array<int32>>;
}

implement My2DArray {
    // Ctor
    public func new(w: int32, h: int32): This {
        val outer = Array(h);
        for (i in Range(0, w)) outer[i] = Array(w);
        return This {
            underlying = outer;
        };
    }

    // Indexer
    public prop index(this, x: int32, y: int32) {
        get = this.underlying[y, x];
        set {
            this.underlying[y, x] = value;
        }
    }
}

What to do with mod and rem

TODO

Abstract, virtual, override member modifiers

Abstract member modifier

TODO

Virtual member modifier

Virtual members can use the open modifier. Similarly, how open opens up a type for extension, it also does the same for the marked members (properties and functions). The modifier is only valid on instance (nonstatic) members.

Examples:

open class Person {
    field name: string;
}

implement Person {
    public open prop Name(this): string = this.name;
    public open func greet(this): string = "Hi, \{this.Name}";
}

Override member modifier

For virtual and abstract members override becomes a valid modifier for prividing an overriding implementation in derived types. Example:

class RudePerson : Person {}

implement RudePerson {
    public override prop Name(this): string = base.Name.ToLower();
    public override func greet(this): string = "";
}

Note, that overriding members are sealed by default, unless they are explicitly kept open:

implement RudePerson {
    public open override prop Name(this): string = base.Name.ToLower();
    public open override func greet(this): string = "";
}

Not yet considered

A section to list what this proposal hasn't considered yet (partially copied from the section listing the C# elements).

Data type modifiers:

Members:

Member modifiers:

Elaborate examples

TODO

Kuinox commented 9 months ago

Here a sample with updated syntax, and which show what we discussed: 

// interface
interface IPolygon {
    // static property
    prop pointCount: int { get; }
    // property
    prop points(this): Array<Point> { get; }
    // Reference to the implementation type through This
    func make(points: Array<Point>): This;
}

// struct type.
value class Point public(val X: int, val Y: int);

// primary constructor
class Line public(val P1: Point, val P2: Point) {
    // public instance method
    func public Intersect(this, other: Line): Point? {
        val a1 = this.P2.Y - this.P1.Y;
        val b1 = this.P1.X - this.P2.X;
        val c1 = a1 * this.P1.X + b1 * this.P1.Y;

        val a2 = other.P2.Y - other.P1.Y;
        val b2 = other.P1.X - other.P2.X;
        val c2 = a2 * other.P1.X + b2 * other.P1.Y;

        val delta = a1 * b2 - a2 * b1;

        if (delta == 0) return null;

        val x = (b2 * c1 - b1 * c2) / delta;
        val y = (a1 * c2 - a2 * c1) / delta;
        val intersection = new Point(x, y);

        if (IsWithinSegment(intersection, this.P1, this.P2) and IsWithinSegment(intersection, other.P1, other.P2)) {
            return intersection;
        }

        return null;
    }

    // private static method
    func IsWithinSegment(point: Point, start: Point, end: Point): bool =
        (Math.Min(start.X, end.X) <= point.X and point.X <= Math.Max(start.X, end.X)) and
        (Math.Min(start.Y, end.Y) <= point.Y and point.Y <= Math.Max(start.Y, end.Y));
}

class Triangle public(val P1: Point, val P2: Point, val P3: Point) {
}

// Adding a trait to a type.
extend Triangle with IPolygon {
    // instance property
    val Points(this) = arrayOf(P1, P2, P3);
    // static property
    val PointCount = 3;
    func make(points: Array<Point>): This {
        return new Triangle(points[0], points[1], points[2]);
    }
}

extend Line with IPolygon {
    val Points(this) = arrayOf(P1, P2);
    val PointCount = 2;
    func make(points: Array<Point>): This {
        return new Line(points[0], points[1]);
    }
}