Return 'this' proposal

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

I don't think so. This:

(foo.setBar()).setBaz();

does not translate to:

Take whatever type rolls out of the setBar() call, and call the  
'setBaz()' method on that type.


It instead translates to:

run foo.setBar().

Then run foo.setBaz().

The type returned by the setBar() method *IS* void. This is just  
syntax sugar.


  --Reinier Zwitserloot



On Mar 18, 2009, at 03:48, Jeremy Manson wrote:

> Hey Reinier,
>
> I'm unclear on how that doesn't change the type system.  That is,
> you've described an implementation technique that doesn't require a
> change to bytecode (which is nice), but doesn't it still change
> Java-the-language's type system?
>
> Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> <reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> What's the coin viability for a proposal that does NOT change the  
>> type
>> system, but just introduces syntax sugar that translates:
>>
>> expression.setBar().setBaz();
>>
>> to:
>>
>> TypeOfExpression $unique = expression;
>> $unique.setBar();
>> $unique.setBaz();
>>
>>
>> where the setBar() method has a void return type, but has also been
>> ktited out with a flag that indicates its legal for call sites to do
>> the syntax sugar transformation above? The way this would work is  
>> very
>> similar to varargs: The method with the 'varargs flag' really doesn't
>> do anything special other than have a flag. It's the callers that do
>> all the work.
>>
>>
>> There are backwards compatibility issues, because most of the code
>> that wants to 'return this' currently does not return void, it  
>> instead
>> returns its own type, but I have one strategy for dealing with that
>> issue that is simple and doesn't introduce any new keywords -
>> basically, you get to add the flag to any method, and any callers  
>> will
>> check if the type of the expression is tighter than the return type.
>> If so, then the type of the returned value of the call is similarly
>> tightened. In trade, setting the flag requires the java code to  
>> always
>> "return this" for all return statements; anything else is an instant
>> compiler error. The flag is set by adding 'this' as a keyword to the
>> method's modifier section. This modifier is strictly inherited. So:
>>
>> public abstract class MyBuilder {
>>     public this MyBuilder setFoo(int foo) {
>>         return this;
>>     }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>  --Reinier Zwitserloot
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2009, at 23:48, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>
>>> Marek Kozieł wrote:
>>>> 2009/3/17 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com <mailto:Joe.Darcy at sun.com
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    This 'this' proposal remains vague and imprecise.
>>>>
>>>>    Including this type/self type in a language is a continuing area
>>>>    of study; for example, see the recent paper
>>>>
>>>>    "Matching ThisType to Subtyping," Chieri Saito and Atsushi
>>>>    Igarashi, Kyoto University, Japan, ACM SAC 2009.
>>>>
>>>>    There are open bugs requesting this capability. For example  
>>>> typing
>>>>    "site:bugs.sun.com <http://bugs.sun.com> this type" into a  
>>>> popular
>>>>    search engine quickly yields, amongst other hits,
>>>>
>>>>    6479372 Add self types (type of 'this' aka ThisClass) to the
>>>> language
>>>>
>>>>    This bug discusses the size of the type system impact of this
>>>>    change, a magnitude far too large for Project Coin.
>>>>
>>>>    There is no need to submit further refinements of this idea; any
>>>>    proposal along the lines of adding a this type will be out of
>>>>    scope for Project Coin.
>>>>
>>>>    -Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll check it, but I'm afraid that introducing 'This' type will be
>>>> impossible for Java and for all other languages with Inheritance,
>>>> or I
>>>> would say it's possible but conditions would be huge.
>>>>
>>>> return 'this':
>>>> - Idea is quite simple: you use object from left side of dot as
>>>> returned from method, it's the same quite idea with converting void
>>>> ->
>>>> this, but allowed only when it's written directly.
>>>> - Byte-code for that is other story and I'm not sure how much
>>>> limitation this contains.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you cold while what problems you see (that could help)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As the author and submitter of a proposal, it is your responsibility
>>> to
>>> research, understand, and explain the consequences and  
>>> implications of
>>> your proposal.
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>