6
Deconstruction patterns
source link: https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2023-March/003766.html
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Deconstruction patterns
Deconstruction patterns
Brian Goetz
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Mon Mar 6 18:24:54 UTC 2023
Time to look ahead to the next installment of pattern matching: deconstruction patterns, which generalize record patterns. This document does an end-to-end walkthrough (at a sketchy level of detail) through declaration, overloading, use, translation, and reflection of deconstruction patterns. I would like to *not* discuss syntax at this time. There's a lengthy discussion to be had about syntax, and we'll have that, but let's nail down model, semantics, and translation first. As usual, I would prefer that people either (a) post a single reply addressing the totality of this sketch or (b) start _new threads_ if you want to discuss a specific aspect. A quick "I'll just reply to this minor detail" seems to often derail the conversation in such a way that it never comes back. If this all looks fine to you, a quick "no surprises here" will keep us from suspensefully waiting for feedback. # Deconstruction patterns -- translation, use, and reflection As we are wrapping up record patterns, it's time to look ahead to the next major part of the pattern matching story -- extending the capabilities of record patterns to all classes that want to support destructuring. Record patterns are simply a special case of _deconstruction patterns_ or _deconstructors_, where we derive the deconstructor API, implementation, and use from the state description of the record. For an arbitrary class, a deconstruction patterns will require an explicit member declaration, with a header identifying the names and types of the bindings and a body that extracts the bindings from the representation. ## Deconstructors Just as constructors are special cases of methods, deconstruction patterns are special cases of a more general notion of declared pattern, which also includes static matchers (the dual of static methods) and instance matchers (the dual of instance methods.) Specifically, unlike the more general notion of matcher, a deconstructor must be _total_; it must always match. This document will focus exclusively on deconstructors, and we'll come back to static and instance matchers in due time. (But note that some of the design choices in the simple case of deconstructors may be constrained by the more general case.) There are a number of choices for how we might syntactically represent a deconstructor (or more generally, a declared pattern.) For purposes of illustration, this document picks one possible syntactic expression of deconstructors, but it is premature to devolve into a syntax discussion at this time. ``` class Point { final double x, y; public Point(double x, double y) { this.x = x; this.y = y; } public matcher Point(double x, double y) { x = this.x; y = this.y; } } ``` This example illustrates two aspects of the duality between constructors and their corresponding deconstructors. Their APIs are duals: a constructor takes N parameters containing the desired description of the object state and produces a constructed object; a deconstructor starts from the constructed object and has N bindings (outputs) that receive the desired state components. Similarly, their implementations are duals: the body of the constructor initializes the object representation from the description, and the body of the deconstructor extracts the description from the representation. A deconstructor is best understood as a _co-constructor_. The `Point` example above is special in two ways. First, the internal representation of a `Point`, and the API of the constructor and deconstructor, are the same: `(double x, double y)`. We can call the API implied by the constructor and deconstructor the _external representation_, and for `Point`, both the internal and external representations are the same. (This is one of the requirements for being a candidate to be a record.) And second, the constructor is _total_; it does not reject any combinations of arguments. Here's another version of `Point` which does not have these special aspects; it uses the same internal representation as before, but chooses a pair of strings as the external representation: ``` class Point2 { final double x, y; public Point2(String x, String y) { this.x = Double.parseDouble(x); this.y = Double.parseDouble(y); } public matcher Point2(String x, String y) { x = Double.toString(this.x); y = Double.toSTring(this.y); } } ``` The method `Double::parseDouble` will throw `NumberFormatException` if its argument does not describe a suitable value, so unlike the `Point` constructor, the `Point2` constructor is partial: it will reject `new Double("foo", "bar")`. And the internal representation is no longer the same as the external representation. Less obviously, there are valid string values that we can provide to the constructor, but which cannot be represented exactly as `double`, and which will be approximated; the string value `"3.22222222222222222222222222222222222222"` will be approximated with the double value `3.2222222222222223`. This example highlights more clearly how the constructor and deconstructor form an _embedding-projection pair_ between the internal and external representations. While some external representations might be invalid, and some might result in approximation, deconstruct-then-construct is always an identity transformation. Indeed, the specification of `java.lang.Record` requires that if we deconstruct a record with its accessors, and pass the resulting values back to the constructor, we should get a new record that is `equals` to the original. The fact that constructor and deconstructor (and eventually, factory and static matcher) form an embedding-projection pair is why we are able to derive higher-level language features, such as [safer serialization](https://openjdk.org/projects/amber/design-notes/towards-better-serialization) and [functional transformation of immutable objects](https://github.com/openjdk/amber-docs/blob/master/eg-drafts/reconstruction-records-and-classes.md), from a matched set of constructor and deconstructor. Of course, users are free to implement constructors without deconstructors, or constructors and deconstructors whose external representations don't match up, or even matching constructors and deconstructors that are not behaviorally dual. But providing a matched set (or several) of constructors and deconstructors enables reliably reversible aggregation, and allows us to mechanically derive useful higher-level features such as withers. #### Overloading Just as constructors can be overloaded, deconstructors can be overloaded for the same reason: multiple constructors can expose multiple external representations for aggregation, and corresponding deconstructors can recover those multiple external representations. Any matching pair of constructor-deconstructor (and eventually, factory-deconstructor) is a candidate for use in higher-level features based on the embedding-projection nature of the constructor-deconstructor pair. Just as deconstruction is dual to construction, overloading of deconstructors is dual to that of constructors: rather than restricting which sets of parameters can be overloaded against each other, we do so with the bindings instead. For constructors of a given arity, we require that their signatures not be override-equivalent; for deconstructors of a given arity, we require the same of their bindings. For a deconstructor (and declared patterns in general), we derive a _binding signature_ (and an erased _binding descriptor_) which treats the binding list as a parameter list. The overload rule outlined above requires that binding signatures for two deconstructors of the same arity not be override-equivalent. (We will find it useful later to derive a `MethodType` for the binding descriptor; this is a `MethodType` whose return type is `V` and whose parameter types are the erased types of the bindings.) #### Digression: embedding-projection pairs Given two sets _A_ and _B_, a pair of functions `e : A -> B` and `p : B -> A`, forms an _embedding-projection pair_ if `p . e` (embed then project) is an identity function, and `e . p` (project then embed) _approximates_ the input according to a domain-specific approximation metric (which is a complete partial ordering on `B`.) When applied to constructor-deconstructor pairs, this says that deconstructing an object and then reconstructing it with the resulting bindings should result in an equivalent object, and constructing an object from an external representation and then deconstructing it back into that external representation should result in an approximation of the original external representation. (A complete partial ordering models constructor failure as the non-terminating bottom value, which is considered an infinitely bad approximation to everything.) Embedding-projection pairs have a number of desirable properties, such as the composition of two e-p pairs is an e-p pair; this property is at the heart of using constructor-deconstructor pairs for improved serialization and functional transformation. ## Invoking deconstructors We've already seen how to "invoke" deconstructors: through pattern matching. What we've been calling "record patterns" are merely deconstruction patterns derived mechanically from the state description, just as we do with constructors and accessors; there is little difference between record patterns and deconstruction patterns other than the ability to declare them explicitly. (There is an accidental difference in the translation, in that we currently implement record patterns by appealing to individual accessors rather than a single deconstructor, but this may eventually converge as well.) The use-site syntax of deconstruction bears a deliberate similarity to that of construction; `new Point(x, y)` is deconstructed by `case Point(var x, var y)`. #### Overload selection In the presence of overloaded deconstructors, we need to figure out which deconstructor a deconstruction pattern `C(P*)` is referring to. The details are similar to overload selection for methods, except that we operate on the bindings rather than the parameters. We first search for _applicable matchers_, using increasingly loose criteria (first excluding boxing, unboxing, and varargs; then including boxing and unboxing but not varargs; and finally, all candidates) and then selecting the most applicable. It is tempting to try and bypass the three-phase selection process and use a simpler notion of applicability (perhaps noting that we got this process for compatibility with existing overload selection decisions when autoboxing and varargs were added, and that there are few deconstructor invocations to be compatible with yet.) But because existing overloaded constructors use this mechanism, and there is significant value in pairing constructors and deconstructors, attempting to invent a simpler-but-different overload selection mechanism for deconstructors would inevitably undermine the duality between matching constructor-deconstructor pairs. So compatibility (this time, with existing overloaded constructors) once again forces our hand. The specification for overload selection is complicated significantly by poly expressions (e.g., lambdas); fortunately, there are no "poly patterns", and so, while the structure of JLS 15.12.2 is retained for overload selection of deconstruction patterns, much of the detail is left behind. ## Translation We translate patterns into synthetic methods with a `Matcher` attribute; this method implements the matcher behavior. The translation scheme derives from a number of requirements, only some of which are in play for deconstructors. The matcher method for a deconstructor is a final instance method that takes no parameters and returns `Object`, perhaps with a special name (just as constructors are called `<init>`.) #### Carriers Because the matcher methods implements the matcher behavior, but a matcher may "return" multiple bindings (or failure), we must encode the bindings in some way. For this, we use a _carrier object_. The choice of carrier is largely a footprint/specificity tradeoff. One could imagine a carrier class per matcher, or a carrier class per matcher descriptor, or using `Object[]` as a carrier for everything, or caching some number of common shapes (e.g, three ints and two refs). This sort of tuning should be separate from the protocol encoded in the bytecode of the pattern method and its clients. We use a small _carrier runtime_ to decouple pattern translation from carrier selection. (This same carrier runtime is used by string templates as well.) This allows tradeoffs in runtime characteristics (e.g., carrier per matcher vs sharing carriers across matchers, dropping carrier identity with value types later, etc) without affecting the translation. The carrier API consists of condy bootstraps like: ``` static MethodHandle carrierFactory(MethodType matcherDescriptor) { ... } static MethodHandle carrierAccessor(MethodType matcherDescriptor, int bindingNo) { ... } ``` The `matcherDescriptor` is a `MethodType` describing the binding types. The `carrierFactory` method returns a method handle which takes the bindings and produces a carrier object; the `carrierAccessor` method returns method handles that take the carrier object and return the corresponding binding. To indicate success, the matcher method invokes the carrier factory method handle and returns the result; to indicate failure (deconstructors cannot fail, but other matchers can) the matcher method returns null. We would translate the XY deconstructor from `Point` as follows (pseudo-code): ``` #100: MethodType[(II)V] #101: Condy[bsm=Carriers::carrierFactory, args=[#100]] final synthetic Object Point$MANGLE() { aload_0 getfield Point::x aload_0 getfield Point::y LDC #101 invokevirtual MethodHandle::invoke(II)V areturn } ``` Constant `#100` contains a `MethodType` holding the binding descriptor; constant `#101` holds a method handle whose parameters are the parameter types of the binding descriptor and returns `Object`. At the use site, matching a deconstruction pattern is performed by invoking the matcher method on the appropriate target object, and then extracting the components with the carrier accessor method handles if the match is successful. (Deconstructors are total, so are always successful, but for other patterns, null is returned from the matcher method on failure to match.) #### Method names The name of the matcher method is mangled to support overloading. The JVM permits overloading on parameter types, but not return types (and overloaded matchers are effectively overloaded on return types.) We take the approach of encoding the erasure of the matcher descriptor in the name of the pattern. This has several desirable properties: it is stable (the name is derived solely from stable aspects of the declaration), for matchers with override-equivalent signatures (deconstructors can't be overridden, but other patterns can be), these map to true overrides in the translation, and valid overloads of matchers will always have distinct names. We use the ["Symbolic Freedom"]() encoding of the erasure of the matcher descriptor as the mangled disambiguator, which is exactly as stable as any other method descriptor derived from source declarations. #### Attributes Because patterns are methods, we can take advantage of all the affordances of methods. We can use access bits to control accessibility; we can use the attributes that carry annotations, method parameter metadata, and generics signatures to carry information about the pattern declaration (and its (input) parameters, when we get to those kinds of matchers). What's missing is the fact that this is a pattern implementation and not an ordinary method, and a place to put metadata for bindings. To address the first, we can add the following attribute on matcher methods: Matcher { u2 name; // "Matcher" u4 length; u2 patternFlags; u2 patternName; // UTF8 u2 patternDescr; // MethodType u2 attributes_count; attribute_info attributes[attributes_count]; } This says that "this method is a pattern". The source name of the pattern declaration is reified as `patternName`, and the matcher descriptor, which encodes the types of the bindings, is reified as a `MethodType` in `patternDescr`. The `flags` word can carry matcher-specific information such as "this matcher is a deconstructor" or "this matcher is total". A matcher method may have the usual variety of method attributes, such as `RuntimeInvisibleAnnotations` for annotations on the matcher declaration itself. If we wish to encode information about the matcher _bindings_, we do so with attributes inside the `Matcher` annotation itself. Attributes such as `Signature`, `ParameterNames`, `RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations`, etc, can appear in a `Matcher` and are interpreted relative to the matcher signature or descriptor. So if we had a matcher: ``` matcher Foo(@Bar List<String> list) { ... } ``` then the `Matcher` would contain the signature attribute corresponding to `(List<String>)` and a `RuntimeXxxParameterAnnotations` attribute describing the `@Bar` annotation on the first "parameter". #### Reflection Since matchers are a new kind of class member, they will need a new kind of reflective object, and a method that is analogous to `Class::getConstructors`. The reflective object should extend `Executable`, as all of the existing methods on `Executable` make sense for patterns (using `Object` as the return type.) If the pattern is reflectively invoked, it returns `null` for no match, or an `Object[]` which is the boxing of the values in the carrier. We will then need some additional methods to describe the bindings, so the subtype of `Executable` has methods like `getBindings`, `getAnnotatedBindings`, `getGenericBindings`, `isDeconstructor`, `isPartial`, etc. These methods will decode the `Matcher` attribute and its embedded attributes. ## Summary This design borrows from previous rounds, but makes a number of simplifications. - The bindings of a pattern are captured in a `MethodType`, called the _matcher descriptor_. The parameters of the matcher descriptor are the types of the bindings; the return type is either `V` or the minimal type that will match (but is not as important as the bindings.) - Matchers are translated as methods whose names are derived deterministically from the name of the matcher and the erasure of the pattern descriptor. These are called _matcher methods_. Matcher methods take as parameters the input parameters of the pattern (if any), and return `Object`. - The returned object is an opaque carrier. Null means the pattern didn't match. A non-null value is the carrier type (from the carrier runtime) which is derived from the pattern descriptor. - Matcher methods are not directly invocable from the source language; they are invoked indirectly through pattern matching or reflection. - Generated code invokes the matcher method and interprets the returned value according to the protocol, using MHs from the carrier runtime to access the bindings. - Matcher methods have a `Matcher` attribute, which captures information about the matcher as a whole (is a total/partial, a deconstructor, etc) and parameter-related attributes which describe the bindings. - Matchers are reflected through a new subtype of `Executable`, which exposes new methods to reflect over bindings. - When invoking a matcher reflectively, the carrier is boxed to an Object[].
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK