Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

closure isolation #2322

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
114 changes: 114 additions & 0 deletions proposals/nnnn-closure-isolation.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
# Closure isolation control

* Proposal: [SE-NNNN](nnnn-closure-isolation.md)
* Authors: [Sophia Poirier](https://github.com/sophiapoirier), [John McCall](https://github.com/rjmccall)
* Review Manager: TBD
* Implementation: On `main` gated behind `-enable-experimental-feature TODO`
* Previous Proposals: [SE-0313](0313-actor-isolation-control.md), [SE-0316](0316-global-actors.md)
* Review: ([pitch](https://forums.swift.org/TODO))

## Introduction

This proposal provides the ability to explicitly specify actor-isolation or non-isolation of a closure, as well as providing a parameter attribute to guarantee that a closure parameter inherits the isolation of the context.

## Motivation

The formal isolation of a closure can be explicitly specified as global actor isolation:

```swift
Task { @MainActor in
print("global actor isolation")
}
```

Without a global actor isolation annotation, actor-isolation or non-isolation of a closure is inferred but cannot be explicitly specified. This proposal enables closures to be fully explicit about all three types of formal isolation:
* `nonisolated`
* global actor
* specific actor value

Explicit annotation has the benefit of disabling inference rules and the potential that they lead to a formal isolation that is not preferred. For example, there are circumstances where it is beneficial to guarantee that a closure is `nonisolated` therefore knowing that its execution will hop off the current actor. Explicit annotation also offers the ability to identify a mismatch of intention, such as a case where the developer expected `nonisolated` but inference landed on actor-isolated, and the closure is used in an isolated context. With explicit annotation, the developer would receive a diagnostic about a `nonisolated` closure being used in an actor-isolated context which helpfully identifies this mismatch of intention.

## Proposed solution

Enable explicit specification of non-isolation by allowing `nonisolated` to be a specifier on a closure:

```swift
Task { nonisolated in
print("nonisolated")
}
```

Enable explicit specification of actor-isolation via an isolated parameter in a closure's capture list by using the `isolated` specifier:

```swift
actor A {
func isolate() {
Task { [isolated self] in
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this imply the following scenarios?

func isolate(on otherActor: some AnyActor) {
  Task { [isolated otherActor] in
      // Valid
  }
}
func isolate(on otherActor: some AnyActor) {
  Task { [isolated otherActor] in
     self.bool.toggle() // Fails compilation because `otherActor` isolation does not match `self`'s isolation
  }
}
protocol Toggleable {
  func toggle()
}

func isolate(on otherActor: some AnyActor & Toggleable) {
  Task { [isolated otherActor] in
    otherActor.toggle() // Successful, because this Task is isolated to `otherActor`'s isolation
  }
}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(Let me preface by saying that this proposal isn't fully baked yet, hence not having been pitched or added anyone to the PR yet.)

The first example, it is unclear to me what is "valid" given that the body of the closure does not do anything? But the syntax for the isolation capture is valid, and the capture will be isolated to otherActor.

The second example correct will fail.

The third example yes correct as well.

print("isolated to 'self'")
}
}
}
```

Providing a formal replacement of the experimental parameter attribute `@_inheritActorContext` is needed to resolve another area of ambiguity with closure isolation. Its replacement `@inheritsIsolation` changes the behavior so that it unconditionally and implicitly captures the isolation context (as opposed to currently in actor-isolated contexts it being conditional on whether you capture an isolated parameter or isolated capture or actor-isolated function, but guaranteed if the context is isolated to a global actor or `nonisolated`).

```swift
class Old {
public init(@_inheritActorContext operation: () async)
}

class New {
public init(@inheritsIsolation operation: () async)
}

class C {
var value = 0

@MainActor
func staticIsolation() {
Old {
value = 1 // closure is MainActor-isolated and therefore okay to access self
}
New {
value = 2 // closure is MainActor-isolated and therefore okay to access self
}
}

func dynamicIsolation(_ actor: isolated any Actor) {
Old {
// not isolated to actor without explicit capture
}
New {
// isolated to actor through guaranteed implicit capture
}
}
}
```

## Detailed design

An isolated parameter in a capture list must be of actor type, or conform to or imply an actor, potentially optional, and there can only be one isolated parameter captured, following the same rules described in [SE-0313](0313-actor-isolation-control.md#actor-isolated-parameters) for actor-isolated parameters.

Opting out of `@inheritsIsolation` can be achieved by explicitly annotating the closure argument as `nonisolated`.

`@_inheritActorContext` is currently used by the `Task` initializer in the standard library which should be updated to use `@inheritsIsolation` instead.

## Source compatibility

The language changes are additive and therefore have no implications on source compatibility. The change to `Task.init` in the standard library does have the potential to isolate some closures that previously were inferred to be `nonisolated`. Prior behavior in those cases could be restored, if desired, by explicitly declaring the closure as `nonisolated`.

## ABI compatibility

The language change does not add or affect ABI since formal isolation is already part of a closure's type regardless of whether it is explicitly specified. The `Task.init` cahnge does not impact ABI since the function is annotated with `@_alwaysEmitIntoClient` and therefore has no ABI.

## Implications on adoption

none

## Alternatives considered

TODO

## Future directions

TODO