Hi everyone,
One of the features added to Elixir early on to help integration with Erlang code was the idea of overridable function definitions. This is what allowed our GenServer definition to be as simple as:
defmodule MyServer do
use GenServer
end
Implementation-wise, use GenServer
defines functions such as:
def terminate(reason, state) do
:ok
end
and then mark them as overridable:
defoverridable terminate: 2
As the community grew, defoverridable/1
started to show some flaws in its implementation. Furthermore, the community did not always follow up on best practices, often times marking functions as overridable but without defining a proper Behaviour behind the scenes.
The goal of this proposal is to clarify the existing functionality and propose extensions that will push the community towards best practices.
In the example above, we have used defoverridable terminate: 2
to make the definition of the terminate/2
function optional.
However, in some cases, the use of defoverridable seems to be unnecessary. For instance, we provide a default implementation for handle_call/3
and mark it as overridable, but the default implementation simply raises when invoked. That's counter-intuitive as it would be best to simply not define a default implementation in the first place, truly making the handle_call/3
callback optional.
Luckily, Erlang 18 added support for marking callbacks as optional, which we support on Elixir v1.4. We propose Elixir and libraries to leverage this feature and no longer define default implementations for the handle_*
functions and instead mark them as optional.
Instead of the version we have today:
defmodule GenServer do
@callback handle_call(message, from, state)
defmacro __using__(_) do
quote do
@behaviour GenServer
def handle_call(_message, _from, _state) do
raise "handle_call/3 not implemented"
end
# ...
defoverridable handle_call: 3
end
end
end
We propose:
defmodule GenServer do
@callback handle_call(message, from, state)
@optional_callbacks handle_call: 3
defmacro __using__(_) do
quote do
@behaviour GenServer
# ...
end
end
end
The proposed code is much simpler conceptually since we are using the @optional_callbacks
feature instead of defoverridable
to correctly mark optional callbacks as optional. defoverridable
will still be used for functions such as terminate/2
, which are truly required.
For developers using GenServer, no change will be necessary to their code base. The goal is that, by removing unnecessary uses of defoverridable/1
, the Elixir code base can lead by example and hopefully push the community to rely less on such tools when they are not necessary.
Even with the improvements above, the usage of defoverridable/1
and @optional_callbacks
still have one major downside: the lack of warnings for implementation mismatches. For example, imagine that instead of defining handle_call/3
, you accidentally define a non-callback handle_call/2
. Because handle_call/3
is optional, Elixir won't emit any warnings, so it may take a while for developers to understand why their handle_call/2
callback is not being invoked.
We plan to solve this issue by introducing the @impl true
annotation that will check the following function is the implementation of a behaviour. Therefore, if someone writes a code like this:
@impl true
def handle_call(message, state) do
...
end
The Elixir compiler will warn that the current module has no behaviour that requires the handle_call/2
function to be implemented, forcing the developer to correctly define a handle_call/3
function. This is a fantastic tool that will not only help the compiler to emit warnings but will also make the code more readable, as any developer that later uses the codebase will understand the purpose of such function is to be a callback implementation.
The @impl
annotation is optional. When @impl true
is given, we will also add @doc false
unless documentation has been given. We will also support a module name to be given. When a module name is given, Elixir will check the following function is an implementation of a callback in the given behaviour:
@impl GenServer
def handle_call(message, from, state) do
...
end
While @impl
will give more confidence and assistance to developers, it is only useful if developers are defining behaviours for their contracts. Elixir has always advocated that a behaviour must always be defined when a set of functions is marked as overridable but it has never provided any convenience or mechanism to enforce such rules.
Therefore we propose the addition of defoverridable BehaviourName
, which will make all of the callbacks in the given behaviour overridable. This will help reduce the duplication between behaviour and defoverridable definitions and push the community towards best practice. Therefore, instead of:
defmodule GenServer do
defmacro __using__(_) do
quote do
@behaviour GenServer
def init(...) do ... end
def terminate(..., ...) do ... end
def code_change(..., ..., ...) do ... end
defoverridable init: 1, terminate: 2, code_change: 3
end
end
end
We propose:
defmodule GenServer do
defmacro __using__(_) do
quote do
def init(...) do ... end
def terminate(..., ...) do ... end
def code_change(..., ..., ...) do ... end
defoverridable GenServer
end
end
end
By promoting new defoverridable API above, we hope library developers will consistently define behaviours for their overridable functions, also enabling developers to use the @impl true
annotation to guarantee the proper callbacks are being implemented.
PS: Notice defoverridable
always comes after the function definitions, currently and as well as in this proposal. This is required because Elixir functions have multiple clauses and if the defoverridable
came before, we would be unable to know in some cases when the overridable function definition ends and when the user overriding starts. By having defoverridable
at the end, this boundary is explicit.
This proposal promotes the use the of @optional_callbacks
, which is already supported by Elixir, and introduces defoverridable(behaviour_name)
which will push library developers to define proper behaviours and callbacks for overridable code.
We also propose the addition of the @impl true
or @impl behaviour_name
annotation, that will check the following function has been listed as a callback by any behaviour used by the current module.
Feedback?
@impl
might get confused with something related to protocols because of Kernel.defimpl/3
, Protocol.assert_impl!/2
, and Protocol.extract_impls/2
beeing the only things mentioning "impl" in elixir until now. Therefore I'd opt for something like @override
as in Java. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4J2EE%3DvM9k6hz-wsASfYUuTs%2B_JwRW4cnyFn-eYAcuD0g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
@impl true
. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/85e62305-2b5f-4ae2-8e20-19f5cdf6e6d8%40googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
======================================================= I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/ =======================================================
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
I believe the reason why `@impl` is required is because if a callback is optional, you can't warn about it missing, but the bug would be if someone *thought* they were implementing the optional callback, but had the signature wrong.
I do wonder though if it would be possible to check for function definitions with the same name as a callback, but a signature which doesn't match.
I'm +1 on all of these changes myself, though as a library maintainer, it seems to me that there is a bit of a pain point with `defoverridable` specifically, in that it takes a Keyword.t today, but will take atom() in the new version.
Using @optional_callbacks
I love the idea of this. I think it simplifies a lot of the work and is still explicit. If this is in place can a callback still have an implementation? I ask because sometimes it is nice to have the exception give some larger context of information when an undefined callback is used. Many times I think a default error is okay, but sometimes I want to provide the developer with a more in depth explanation.
The original way is more explicit about what is overridable and what is not. Would it be possible to be explicit by changing defoverridable to be used the same way as def, defmodule, and defimple? The defoverridable feels like it goes along with the other "def" tokens.
I like the notation here when it includes that name of the behavior, but I'm not a fan of the true. I understand that it appears directly above the header in question, but I like the explicit version. Would this only go over one clause?, or would it have to be over top of each clause?
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/0c46c5d9-3952-49a2-adfb-9eae6791eb86%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/0c46c5d9-3952-49a2-adfb-9eae6791eb86%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAN3B1jd_d3ZshY8hpE0eFYx-j5Fd_2dac5_CoB-vrWMYWaVsow%40mail.gmail.com.