Towards member patterns

[Remi Forax]

Hello,
I agree until the section 'Recovering static factory arguments', because at that point, it's the tail waging the dog.

In this section you introduce a new syntax with little justification ("it makes sense") which should not a big problem if it was not your way to justify the introduction of pattern method being static, which are static only because the syntax you have chosen looks like static calls.

As you said in the sections above, case Point(int x, int y) is two things, first an instanceof of Point followed by the destructuration of a Point, and those two operations are co-mingled into one syntax. We can try to do the same with pattern methods, i.e. having one syntax that express an instanceof follow by a call on the result of that instanceof to a method that extract the binding.

I think that choosing a syntax at that point is premature given the semantics is still in flux, especially if that syntax is used as a justification to say that pattern methods are static (*). At that point, it's a trap.

As you know, you can use static methods instead of instance methods but you are loosing the polymorphism.
In case of method pattern, it's an issue because it means that if you have a pattern method on an interface, an implementation cannot override it. Here is an example using the syntax you propose, let say I want to do the inverse of Map.entry(), if write an inverse pattern method inside Map then the only way write it is to use the getters getKey() and getValue().


  interface Map<K,V> {
    static <K,V> Entry<K,V> entry(K key, V value) { ... }
    static inverse <K,V> Entry<K,V> entry(K key, V value) {
      // here, we are morons, we have to use getters :(
      __yield (that.getKey(), that.getValue());
    }
  }

So a thread-safe implementation of Map cannot write an implementation of Map.Entry that destructures itself under a lock.

I think as an exercice, you should try to use a syntax that does not looks like a static method call for the pattern (e.g. case Point p && match p.polar(double rho, double theta) ?) and ask yourself if it still make sense for the pattern method to be always static and for the concept of inverse method to exist.

Rémi

* I know it's not fully static, it can be an instance method if the pattern is itself used inside an instance method (just to add side effects in the mix).

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> To: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:57:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Towards member patterns

> I was told that the formatting of the earlier version was borked, so
> re-sending, hopefully without any formatting this time....
> 
> # Towards member patterns
> 
> Time to check in on where things are in the bigger picture of patterns
> as class
> members.  Note: while this document may have illustrative examples, you
> should
> not take that as a definitive statement of syntax, and Remi will not be
> commenting on the syntax at this time.
> 
> We've already dipped our toes in the water with _record patterns_. A record
> pattern looks like:
> 
>     case R(p1, p2, ... pn):
> 
> where `R` is a record type and `p1..pn` are nested patterns that are
> matched to
> its components.  Because records are defined by their state description,
> we can
> automatically derive record patterns "for free", just as we derive record
> constructors, accessors, etc.
> 
> There are many other classes that would benefit from being
> deconstructible with
> patterns.  To that end, we will generalize record patterns to
> _deconstruction
> patterns_, where any class can declare an explicit deconstruction
> pattern and
> participate in pattern matching like records do.
> 
> Deconstruction patterns are not the end of the user-declared pattern
> story. Just
> as some classes prefer to expose static factories rather than
> constructors, they
> will be able to expose corresponding static patterns.  And there is also
> a role
> for "instance patterns" and "pattern objects" as well.
> 
> Looking only at record and deconstruction patterns, it might be tempting to
> think that patterns are "just" methods with multiple return.   But this
> would be
> extrapolating from a special case.  Pattern matching is intrinsically
> _conditional_; the extraction of values from a target is conditioned on
> whether
> the target _matches_ the pattern.  For the patterns we've seen so far --
> type
> patterns and record patterns -- matching can be determined entirely by
> types.
> But more sophisticated patterns can also depend on other aspects of object
> state.  For example, a pattern corresponding to the static factory
> `Optional::of` requires not only that the match candidate be of type
> `Optional`,
> but that the match candidate is an `Optional` that actually holds a value.
> Similarly, a pattern corresponding a regular expression requires the match
> candidate to not only be a `String`, but to match the regular expression.
> 
> ## The key intuition around patterns
> 
> A key capability of objects is _aggregation_; the combination of component
> values into a higher-level composite that incorporates those
> components.  Java
> facilitates a variety of idioms for aggregation, including constructors,
> factories, builders, etc.  The dual of aggregation is _destructuring_ or
> _decomposition_, which takes an aggregate and attempts to recover its
> "ingredients".  However, Java's support for destructuring has
> historically been
> far more ad-hoc, largely limited to "write some getters".  Pattern matching
> seeks to put destructuring on the same firm foundation as aggregation.
> 
> Deconstruction patterns (such as record patterns) are the dual of
> construction.
> If we construct an object:
> 
>     Object o = new Point(x, y);
> 
> we can deconstruct it with a deconstruction pattern:
> 
>     if (o instanceof Point(var x, var y)) { ... }
> 
> > Intuitively, this pattern match asks "could this object have come from
> > invoking the constructor `new Point(x, y)` for some `x` and `y`, and
> if so,
> > tell me what they are."
> 
> While not all patterns exist in direct correspondence to another
> constructor or
> method, this intuition that a pattern reconstructs the ingredients to an
> aggregation operation is central to the design; we'll explore the
> limitations of
> this intuition in greater detail later.
> 
> ## Use cases for declared patterns
> 
> Before turning to how patterns fit into the object model, let's look at
> some of
> the potential use cases for patterns in APIs.
> 
> ### Recovering construction arguments
> 
> Deconstruction patterns are the dual of constructors; where a
> constructor takes
> N arguments and aggregates them into an object, a deconstruction pattern
> takes
> an aggregate and decomposes it into its components.  Constructors are
> unusual in
> that they are instance behavior (they have an implicit `this` argument),
> but are
> not inherited; deconstruction patterns are the same.  For deconstruction
> patterns (but not for all instance patterns), the match candidate is
> always the
> receiver.  Tentatively, we've decided that deconstruction patterns are
> always
> unconditional; that a deconstruction pattern for class `Foo` should
> match any
> instance of `Foo`.  At the use site, deconstruction patterns use the
> same syntax
> as record patterns:
> 
>     case Point(int x, int y):
> 
> Just as constructors can be overloaded, so can deconstruction patterns.
> However,
> the reasons we might overload deconstruction patterns are slightly different
> than for constructors, and so it may well be the case that we end up
> with fewer
> overloads of deconstruction patterns than we do of constructors.
> Constructors
> often form _telescoping sets_, both for reasons of syntactic convenience
> at the
> use site (fewer arguments to specify) and to avoid brittleness (clients
> can let
> the class implementation pick the defaults rather than hard-coding
> them.)  This
> motivation is less pronounced for deconstruction patterns (unwanted
> bindings can
> be ignored with `_`), so it is quite possible that authors will choose
> to have
> one deconstruction pattern overload per telescoping constructor _set_,
> rather
> than one per constructor.
> 
> There is no requirement for deconstruction patterns to expose the exact
> same API
> as constructors, but we expect this will be common, at least for classes for
> which the construction process is effectively an aggregation operation
> on the
> constructor arguments.
> 
> ### Recovering static factory arguments
> 
> Not all classes want to expose their constructors; sometimes classes
> prefer to
> expose static factories instead.  In this case, the class should be able to
> expose corresponding static patterns as well.
> 
> For a class like `Optional`, which exposes factories `Optional::of` and
> `Optional::empty`, the object state incorporates not only the factory
> arguments,
> but which factory was chosen.  Accordingly, it makes sense to
> deconstruct the
> object in the same way:
> 
>     switch (optional) {
>         case Optional.of(var payload): ...
>         case Optional.empty(): ...
>     }
> 
> Such patterns are necessarily conditional, asking the Pattern Question:
> "could
> this `Optional` have come from the `Optional::of` factory, and if so,
> with what
> argument?"  Static patterns, like static methods, lack a receiver, so
> `this` is
> not defined in the body of a static pattern.  However, we will need a way to
> denote the match candidate, so its state can be examined by the pattern
> body.
> 
> Another feature of static methods is that they can be used to put a
> factory for
> a class `C` in _another_ class, whether one in the same maintenance
> domain (such
> as the `Collections`) or in some other package.  This feature is shared by
> static patterns.
> 
> ### Conversions and queries
> 
> Another application for static patterns is the dual of static methods for
> conversions.  For a static method like `Integer::toString`, which
> converts an
> `int` to its `String` representation, a corresponding static pattern
> `Integer::toString` can ask the Pattern Question: "could this `String`
> have come
> from converting an integer to `String`, and if so, what integer".
> 
> Some groups of query methods in existing APIs are patterns in disguise.  The
> class `java.lang.Class` has a pair of instance methods, `Class::isArray` and
> `Class::getComponentType`, that work together to determine if the `Class`
> describes an array type, and if so, provide its component type. This
> question
> is much better framed as a single pattern:
> 
>     case Class.arrayClass(var componentType):
> 
> The two existing methods are made more complicated by their relationship
> to each
> other; `Class::getComponentType` has a precondition (the `Class` must
> describe
> an array type) and therefore has to specify and implement what to do if the
> precondition fails, and the relationship between the methods is captured
> only in
> documentation.  By combining them into a single pattern, it become
> impossible to
> misuse (because of the inherent conditionality of patterns) and easier to
> understand (because it can all be documented in one place.)
> 
> This hypothetical `Class::arrayClass` pattern also has a sensible dual as a
> factory method:
> 
>     static<T> Class<T[]> arrayClass(Class<T> componentType)
> 
> which produces the array `Class` for the array type whose component type is
> provided. An API need not provide both directions of a conversion, but if it
> does, the two generally strengthen each other.  This method/pattern pair
> could
> be either static or instance members, depending on API design choice.
> 
> Another form of "conversion" method / pattern pair, even though both
> types are
> the same, is "power of two".  A `powerOfTwo` method takes an exponent and
> returns the resulting power of two; a `powerOfTwo` pattern asks if its match
> candidate is a power of two, and if so, binds the base-two logarithm.
> 
> ### Numeric conversions
> 
> As Project Valhalla gives us the ability to declare new numeric types,
> we will
> want to be able to convert these new types to other numeric types. For
> unconditional conversions (such as widening half-float to float), an
> ordinary
> method will suffice:
> 
>     float widen(HalfFloat f);
> 
> But the reverse is unlikely to be unconditional; narrowing conversions
> can fail
> if the value cannot be represented in the narrower type. This is better
> represented as a pattern which asks the Pattern Question: "could this
> `float`
> have come from widening a `HalfFloat`, and if so, tell me what
> `HalfFloat` that
> is."  A widening conversion (or boxing conversion) is best represented by a
> _pair_ of members, an ordinary method for the unconditional direction, and a
> pattern for the conditional direction.
> 
> ### Conditional extraction
> 
> Some operations, such as matching a string to a regular expression with
> capture
> groups, are pattern matches in disguise.  We should be able to take a
> regular
> expression R and match against it with `instanceof` or `switch`, binding
> capture
> groups (using varargs patterns) if it matches.
> 
> ## Member patterns in the object model
> 
> We currently have three kinds of executable class members: constructors,
> static
> methods, and instance methods.  (Actually constructors are not members,
> but we
> will leave this pedantic detail aside for now.)  As the above examples show,
> each of these can be amenable to a dual member which asks the Pattern
> Question
> about it.
> 
> Patterns are dual to constructors and methods in two ways: structurally and
> semantically.  Structurally, patterns invert the relationship between
> inputs and
> outputs: a method takes N arguments as input and produces a single
> result, and
> the corresponding pattern takes a candidate result (the "match
> candidate") and
> conditionally produces N bindings.  Semantically, patterns ask the Pattern
> Question: could this result have originated by some invocation of the dual
> operation.
> 
> ### Patterns as inverse methods and constructors
> 
> One way to frame patterns in the object model is as _inverse
> constructors_ and
> _inverse methods_.  For purposes of this document, I will use an
> illustrative
> syntax that directly evokes this duality (but remember, we're not discussing
> syntax now):
> 
> ```
> class Point {
>     final int x, y;
> 
>     // Constructor
>     Point(int x, int y) { ... }
> 
>     // Deconstruction pattern
>     inverse Point(int x, int y) { ... }
> }
> 
> class Optional<T> {
>     // Static factories
>     static<T> Optional<T> of(T t) { ... }
>     static<T> Optional<T> empty() { ... }
> 
>     // Static patterns
>     static<T> inverse Optional<T> of(T t) { ... }
>     static<T> inverse Optional<T> empty() { ... }
> }
> ```
> 
> `Point` has a constructor an an inverse constructor (deconstruction
> pattern) for
> the external representation `(int x, int y)`; in an inverse constructor, the
> binding list appears where the parameter list does in the constructor.
> `Optional<T>` has static factories and corresponding patterns for
> `empty` and
> `of`.  As with inverse constructors, the binding list of a pattern
> appears in
> the position that the parameters appear in a method declaration;
> additionally,
> the _match candidate type_ appears in the position that the return value
> appears
> in a method declaration.  In both cases, the declaration site and use
> site of
> the pattern uses the same syntax.
> 
> In the body of an inverse constructor or method, we need to be able to talk
> about the match candidate.  In this model, the match candidate has a type
> determined by the declaration (for an inverse constructor, the class; for an
> inverse method, the type specified in the "return position" of the inverse
> method declaration), and there is a predefined context variable (e.g.,
> `that`)
> that refers to the match candidate.  For inverse constructors, the receiver
> (`this`) is aliased to the match candidate (`that`), but not necessarily
> so for
> inverse methods.
> 
> ### Do all methods potentially have inverses?
> 
> We've seen examples of constructors, static methods, and instance
> methods that
> have sensible inverses, but not all methods do.  For example, methods that
> operate primarily by side effects (such as mutative methods like setters or
> `List::add`) are not suitable candidates for inverses.  Similarly, pure
> functions that "co-mingle" their arguments (such as arithmetic
> operators) are
> also not suitable candidates for inverses, because the ingredients to the
> operation typically can't be recovered from the result (i.e., `4` could
> be the
> result of `plus(2, 2)` or `plus(1, 3)`).
> 
> Intuitively, the methods that are invertible are the ones that are
> _aggregative_.  The constructor of a (well-behaved) record is
> aggregative, since
> all the information passed to the constructor is preserved in the result.
> Factories like `Optional::of` are similarly aggregative, as are non-lossy
> conversions such as widening or boxing conversions.
> 
> Ideally, an aggregation operation and its corresponding inverse form an
> _embedding projection pair_ between the aggregate and a component space.
> Intuitively, an embedding-projection pair is an algebraic structure
> defined by a
> pair of functions between two sets such that composing in one direction
> (embed-then-project) is an identity, and composing in the other direction
> (project-then-embed) is a well-behaved approximation.
> 
> ### Conversions
> 
> Conversion methods are a frequent candidate for inversion.  We already have
> 
>     // Integer.java
>     static String toString(int i) { ... }
> 
> to which the obvious inverse is
> 
>     static inverse String toString(int i) { ... }
> 
> and we can inspect a string to see if it is the string representation of
> an integer with
> 
>     if (s instanceof Integer.toString(int i)) { ... }
> 
> This composes nicely with deconstruction patterns; if we have a
> `Box<String>`
> and want to ask whether the contained string is really the string
> representation
> of an integer, we can ask:
> 
>     case Box(Integer.toString(int i)):
> 
> which conveniently looks just like the composition of constructors or
> factories
> used to create such an instance (`new Box(Integer.toString(3))`).
> 
> When it comes to user-definable numeric conversions, the most likely
> strategy
> involves combining related operators in a single _witness_ object. For
> example,
> numeric conversion might be modeled as:
> 
> ```
> interface NumericConversion<FROM, TO> {
>     TO convert(FROM from);
>     inverse TO convert(FROM from);
> }
> ```
> 
> which reflects the fact that conversion is total in one direction (widening,
> boxing) and conditional in the other (narrowing, unboxing.)
> 
> ### Regular expression matching
> 
> Regular expressions are a form of ad-hoc pattern; a given string might
> match a
> given regex, or not, and if it does, it might product multiple bindings (the
> capture groups.)  It would be nice to be able to express regular expression
> matches as ordinary pattern matches.
> 
> Conveniently, we already have an object representation of regular
> expressions --
> `java.util.Pattern`.  Which is an ideal place to put an instance pattern:
> 
> ```
> // varargs pattern
> public inverse String match(String... groups) {
>     Matcher m = matcher(that);    // *that* is the match candidate
>     if (m.matches())              // receiver for matcher() is the Pattern
>         __yield IntStream.range(1, m.groupCount())
>                             .map(Matcher::group)
>                             .toArray(String[]::new);
> }
> ```
> 
> And now, we want to express "does string s match any of these regular
> expressions":
> 
> ```
> static final Pattern As = Pattern.compile("([aA]*)");
> static final Pattern Bs = Pattern.compile("([bB]*)");
> static final Pattern Cs = Pattern.compile("([cC]*)");
> 
> ...
> 
> switch (aString) {
>     case As.match(String as) -> ...
>     case Bs.match(String bs) -> ...
>     case Cs.match(String cs) -> ...
>     ...
> }
> ```
> 
> Essentially, `j.u.r.Pattern` becomes a _pattern object_, where the state
> of the
> object is used to determine whether or not it matches any given input.
> (There
> is nothing stopping a class from having multiple patterns, just as it
> can have
> multiple methods.)
> 
> ## Pattern resolution
> 
> When we invoke a method, sometimes we are able to refer to the method
> with an
> _unqualified_ name (e.g., `m(3)`), and sometimes the method must be
> _qualified_
> with a type name, package name, or a receiver object.  The same is true for
> declared patterns.
> 
> Constructors for classes that are in the same package, or have been
> imported,
> can be referred to with an unqualified name; constructors can also be
> qualified
> with a package name.  The same is true for deconstruction patterns:
> 
> ```
> case Foo(int x, int y):         // unqualified
> case com.foo.Bar(int x, int y): // qualified by package
> ```
> 
> Static methods that are declared in the current class or an enclosing
> class, or
> are statically imported, can be referred to with an unqualified name; static
> methods can also be qualified with a type name.  The same is true for static
> patterns:
> 
> ```
> case powerOfTwo(int exp):  // unqualified
> case Optional.of(var e):   // qualified by class
> ```
> 
> Instance methods invoked on the current object can be referred to with an
> unqualified name; instance methods can also be qualified by a receiver
> object.
> The same is true for instance patterns:
> 
> ```
> case match(String s):    // unqualified
> case As.match(String s): // qualified by receiver
> ```
> 
> In a qualified pattern `x.y`, `x` might be a package name, a class name,
> or a
> (effectively final) receiver variable; we use the same rules for
> choosing how to
> interpret a qualifier for patterns as we do for method invocations.
> 
> ## Benefits of explicit duality
> 
> Declaring method-pattern pairs whose structure and name are the same
> yields many
> benefits.  It means that we take things apart using the same
> abstractions used to put them together, which makes code more readable
> and less error-prone.
> 
> Referring to a _inverse pair_ of operations by a single name is simpler than
> having separate names for each direction; not only don't we need to come
> up with
> a name for the other direction, we also don't need to teach clients that
> "these
> two names are inverses", because the inverses have the same name
> already. What
> we know about the method `Integer::toString` immediately carries over to its
> inverse.
> 
> Further, thinking about a method-pattern pair provides a normalizing
> force to
> actually ensuring the two are inverses; if we just had two related methods
> `xToY` and `yToX`, they might diverge subtly because the connection
> between the
> two members is not very strong.
> 
> Finally, this gives the language permission to treat the _pair_ of
> members as a
> thing in some cases, such as the use of ctor-dtor pairs in "withers" or
> serialization.
> 
> The explicit duality takes a little time to get used to.   We have many
> years of
> experience of naming a method for its directionality, so people's first
> reaction
> is often "the pattern should be called `Integer.fromString`, not
> `Integer.toString`". So people will initially bristle at giving both
> directions
> the same name, especially when one implies a directionality such as
> `toString`.
> (In these cases, we can fall back on a convention that says that we
> should name
> it for the total direction.)
> 
> ## Pattern lambdas, pattern objects, pattern references
> 
> Interfaces with a single abstract method (SAM) are called _functional
> interfaces_ and we support a conversion (historically called SAM conversion)
> from lambdas to functional interfaces.  Interfaces with a single abstract
> pattern can benefit from a similar conversion (call this "SAP" conversion.)
> 
> In the early days of Streams, people complained about processing a
> stream using
> instanceof and cast:
> 
> ```
> Stream<Object> objects = ...
> Stream<String> strings = objects.filter(x -> x instanceof String)
>                                 .map(x -> (String) x);
> ```
> 
> This locution is disappointing both for its verbosity (saying the same
> thing in
> two different ways) and its efficiency (doing the same work basically
> twice.)  Later, it became possible to slightly simplify this using
> `mapMulti`:
> 
> ```
> objects.mapMulti((x, sink) -> { if (x instanceof String s)
> sink.accept(s); })
> ```
> 
> But, ultimately this stream pipeline is a pattern match; we want to
> match the
> elements to the pattern `String s`, and get a stream of the matched string
> bindings.  We are now in a position to expose this more directly. Suppose we
> had the following SAP interface:
> 
> ```
> interface Match<T, U> {
>     inverse U match(T t);
> }
> ```
> 
> then `Stream` could expose a `match` method:
> 
> ```
> <U> Stream<T> match(Match<T, U> pattern);
> ```
> 
> We can SAP-convert a lambda whose yielded bindings are compatible with
> the sole
> abstract pattern in the SAP interface::
> 
> ```
> Match<Object, String> m = o -> { if (o instanceof String s) __yield(s); };
> ... stream.match(s) ...
> ```
> 
> And we can do the same with _pattern references_ to existing patterns
> that are
> compatible with the sole pattern in a SAP interface.   As a special
> case, we can
> also support a conversion from type patterns to a compatible SAP type
> with an
> `instanceof` pattern reference (analogous to a `new` method reference):
> 
> ```
> objects.match(String::instanceof)
> ```
> 
> where `String::instanceof` means the same as the previous lambda
> example.  This
> means that APIs like `Stream` can abstract over conditional behavior as
> well as
> unconditional.