|
| 1 | +# Support ~Copyable, ~Escapable in simple standard library protocols |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +* Proposal: [SE-0499](NNNN-make-stdlib-protocols-escapable.md) |
| 4 | +* Authors: [Ben Cohen](https://github.com/airspeedswift) |
| 5 | +* Review Manager: [Holly Borla](https://github.com/hborla) |
| 6 | +* Status: **Active Review (November 18 - December 2, 2025)** |
| 7 | +* Implementation: [swiftlang/swift#85079](https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/85079) |
| 8 | +* Review: ([pitch](https://forums.swift.org/t/support-copyable-escapable-in-simple-standard-library-protocols/83083)) |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +## Introduction |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +The following protocols will be marked as refining `~Copyable` and `~Escapable`: |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +- `Equatable`, `Comparable`, and `Hashable` |
| 15 | +- `CustomStringConvertible` and `CustomDebugStringConvertible` |
| 16 | +- `TextOutputStream` and `TextOutputStreamable` |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +`LosslessStringConvertible` will be marked as refining `~Copyable`. |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +Additionally, `Optional` and `Result` will have their `Equatable` and `Hashable` conformances updated to support `~Copyable` and `~Escapable` elements. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +## Motivation |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Several standard library protocols have simple requirements not involving associated types or elaborate generic implementations. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +- `Equatable` and `Comparable` tend only to need to borrow the left- and right-hand side |
| 27 | +of their one essential operator in order to equate or compare values; |
| 28 | +- `Hashable` only needs operations to fold hash values produced by a borrowed value |
| 29 | +into a `Hasher`; |
| 30 | +- The various `String` producing or consuming operations only |
| 31 | +need to borrow their operand to turn it into a string (as `CustomStringConvertible.description` |
| 32 | +does), or can create a non-`Copyable` values (as `LosslessStringConvertible.init?` could). |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +Use of these protocols is ubiquitous in Swift code, and this can be a major impediment to introducing non-`Copyable` |
| 35 | +types into a codebase. For example, it might be desirable to drop in a |
| 36 | +[`UniqueArray`](https://swiftpackageindex.com/apple/swift-collections/1.3.0/documentation/basiccontainers/uniquearray) |
| 37 | +to replace an `Array` in some code where the copy-on-write checks are proving prohibitively expensive. But this |
| 38 | +cannot be done if that code is relying on that array type being `Hashable`. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +Noncopyability can be useful for a variety of uses. In some cases, it is used for correctness to avoid |
| 41 | +accidental sharing of a value that should not be. But it can also be used to build efficient non-reference-counted |
| 42 | +alternatives to heap-allocating data structures such as `String` or arbitrary-precision numeric types. In these cases, |
| 43 | +the ability to equate or compare such values to each other is highly useful. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +## Proposed solution |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +The following signatures in the standard library will be changed. None of these |
| 48 | +changes affect the existing semantics, just allow them to be applied to non-`Copyable`/`Escapable` types. |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +```swift |
| 51 | +protocol Equatable: ~Copyable, ~Escapable { |
| 52 | + static func == (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 53 | +} |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +extension Equatable where Self: ~Copyable & ~Escapable { |
| 56 | + static func != (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 57 | +} |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +protocol Comparable: Equatable, ~Copyable, ~Escapable { |
| 60 | + static func < (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 61 | + static func <= (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 62 | + static func >= (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 63 | + static func > (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 64 | +} |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +extension Comparable where Self: ~Copyable & ~Escapable { |
| 67 | + static func <= (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 68 | + static func >= (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 69 | + static func > (lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 70 | +} |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +protocol Hashable: Equatable & ~Copyable & ~Escapable { } |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +struct Hasher { |
| 75 | + mutating func combine<H: Hashable & ~Copyable & ~Escapable>(_ value: borrowing H) |
| 76 | +} |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +extension Optional: Equatable where Wrapped: Equatable & ~Copyable & ~Escapable { |
| 79 | + public static func ==(lhs: borrowing Wrapped?, rhs: borrowing Wrapped?) -> Bool { |
| 80 | +} |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +extension Optional: Hashable where Wrapped: Hashable & ~Copyable & ~Escapable { |
| 83 | + func hash(into hasher: inout Hasher) |
| 84 | + var hashValue: Int |
| 85 | +} |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +protocol LosslessStringConvertible: CustomStringConvertible, ~Copyable { } |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +protocol TextOutputStream: ~Copyable, ~Escapable { } |
| 90 | +protocol TextOutputStreamable: ~Copyable & ~Escapable { } |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +protocol CustomStringConvertible: ~Copyable, ~Escapable { } |
| 93 | +protocol CustomDebugStringConvertible: ~Copyable, ~Escapable { } |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +extension Result: Equatable where Success: Equatable & ~Copyable, Failure: Equatable { |
| 96 | + public static func ==(lhs: borrowing Self, rhs: borrowing Self) -> Bool |
| 97 | +} |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +extension DefaultStringInterpolation |
| 100 | + mutating func appendInterpolation<T>( |
| 101 | + _ value: borrowing T |
| 102 | + ) where T: TextOutputStreamable & ~Copyable & ~Escapable { } |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | + mutating func appendInterpolation<T>( |
| 105 | + _ value: borrowing T |
| 106 | + ) where T: CustomStringConvertible & ~Copyable & ~Escapable { } |
| 107 | +} |
| 108 | +``` |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +`LosslessStringConvertible` explicitly does not conform to `~Escapable` since this |
| 111 | +would require a lifetime for the created value, something that requires |
| 112 | +further language features to express. It is useful to make it `~Copyable` though, |
| 113 | +since this allows for non-reference-counted arbitrary precision numeric types |
| 114 | +to be created from strings. |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +Note that underscored protocol requirements and methods in extensions are omitted |
| 117 | +but will be updated as necessary. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +## Source compatibility |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +The design of `~Copyable` and `~Escapable` explicitly allows for source compatibility with |
| 122 | +retroactive adoption, as extensions that do not restate these restrictions assume compatibility. |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +So no clients of the standard library should need to alter their existing source except |
| 125 | +with the goal of extending it to work with more types. |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +## ABI compatibility |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +As with previous retroactive adoption, the existing pre-inverse-generics features used in the |
| 130 | +standard library will be applied to preserve the same symbols as existed before. |
| 131 | + |
| 132 | +The ABI implications of back deployment of these protocols is being investigated. It is hoped |
| 133 | +this can be made to work – if not, these new features may need to be gated under a minimum |
| 134 | +deployment target on ABI-stable platforms. |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | +## Future directions |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +There are many other protocols that would benefit from this approach that are not included. |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +Most of these are due to the presence of associated types (for example, `RangeExpression.Bound`), |
| 141 | +which is not yet supported. Once that is a supported feature, these protocols can be similarly |
| 142 | +refined with a follow-on proposal. |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +`Codable` and `Decodable` do not have associated types – but their implementation is heavily |
| 145 | +generic, may not generalize to noncopyable types, and is out of scope for this proposal. |
| 146 | + |
| 147 | +Now that these protocols support them, types such as `InlineArray` and `Span` could be made |
| 148 | +to conditionally conform to `Hashable`, as `Array` does. There is some debate to be had about |
| 149 | +the semantics of `Equatable` conformance for `Span` (though probably not for `InlineArray`), |
| 150 | +and this should be the subject of a future proposal. |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +Allowing more types to be `Custom*StringConvertible where Self: ~Copyable & ~Escapable`, such as `Optional`, |
| 153 | +requires further work on the `print` infrastructure to be able to handle such types, so is out of scope for |
| 154 | +this proposal. |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +## Alternatives considered |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | +It can be argued that non-`Copyable` types have identity, and therefore should not be `Equatable` |
| 159 | +in the current sense of the protocol. In particular: |
| 160 | + |
| 161 | +> Equality implies substitutability—any two instances that compare equally |
| 162 | +> can be used interchangeably in any code that depends on their values. |
| 163 | +
|
| 164 | +One might say that a noncopyable string type (one that does not require reference counting |
| 165 | +or copy-on-write-checking overhead) should not be considered "substitutable" for another. |
| 166 | + |
| 167 | +However, the definition also states: |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +> **Equality is Separate From Identity.** The identity of a class instance is not part of an |
| 170 | +> instance's value. |
| 171 | +
|
| 172 | +As noted in the motivation, one use case for noncopyable types is to replicate standard types |
| 173 | +that would naturally be equated, such as strings or numbers. |
| 174 | + |
| 175 | +Authors of non-`Copyable` types will need to decide for themselves whether their noncopyable |
| 176 | +type should be `Equatable` and what it means. The standard library should allow it to be possible, |
| 177 | +though. |
0 commit comments