Go 2 Generics: The usefulness of requiring minimal contracts
I was recently reading Ole Bulbuk's Why Go Contracts Are A Bad Idea In The Light Of A Changing Go Community (via). One of the things that it suggests is that people will write generics contracts in a very brute force fashion by copying and pasting as much of their existing function bodies into the contract's body as possible (the article's author provides some examples of how people might do this). As much as the idea makes me cringe, I have to admit that I can see how and why it might happen; as Ole Bulbuk notes, it's the easiest way for a pragmatic programmer to work. However, I believe that it's possible to avoid this, and to do so in a way that is beneficial to Go and Go programmers in general. To do so, we will need both a carrot and a stick.
The carrot is a program similar to
gofmt which rewrites contracts
into the accepted canonical minimal form; possibly it should even
be part of what '
gofmt -s' does in a Go 2 with generics. Since
contracts are so flexible and thus so variable, I feel that rewriting
them into a canonical form is generally useful for much the same
gofmt is useful. You don't have to use the canonical
form of a contract, but contracts in canonical form will likely be
easier to read (if only because everyone will be familiar with it)
and easier to compare with each other. Such rewriting is a bit more
gofmt does, since we are going from syntax to semantics
and then back to a canonical syntax for the semantics, but I believe
it's likely to be possible.
(I think it would be a significant danger sign for contracts if this
is not possible or if the community strongly disagrees about what the
canonical form for a particular type restriction should be. If we cannot
write and accept a
gofmt for contracts, something is wrong.)
The stick is that Go 2 should make it a compile time error to include
statements in a contract that are not syntactically necessary and that
do not add any additional restriction to what types the contract will
accept. If you throw in restrict-nothing statements that are copied
from a function body and insist that they stay, your contract does not
compile. If you want your contract to compile, you run the contract
minimizer program and it fixes the problem for you by taking them out.
I feel that this is in the same spirit as requiring all imports to
be used (and then providing
goimports). In general, future people,
including your future self, should not have wonder if some statement in
a contract was intended to create some type restriction but accidentally
didn't, and you didn't notice because your current implementation of the
generic code didn't actually require it. Things in contracts should
either be meaningful or not present at all.
To be clear here, this is not the same as a contract element that is not used in the current implementation. Those always should be legal, because you always should be able to write a contract that is more strict and more limited than you actually need today. Such a more restrictive contract is like a limited Go interface; it preserves your flexibility to change things later. This is purely about an element of the contract that does not add some extra constraint on the types that the contract accepts.
(You can pretty much always relax the restrictions of an existing contract without breaking API compatibility, because the new looser version will still accept all of the types it used to. Tightening the restrictions is not necessarily API compatible, because the new, more restricted contract may not accept some existing types that people are currently using it with.)
PS: I believe that there should be a
gofmt for contracts even if
their eventual form is less clever than the first draft proposal,
unless the eventual form of contracts is so restricted that there
is already only one way to express any particular type restriction.
Comments on this page:Written on 22 April 2019.