Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
327 lines (253 sloc) 9.46 KB


This proposes the addition of a final modifier which has a similar meaning to that found in Java.


The primary motivations for this change are: constants, ownership and foreign code.


Currently, constants in Whiley are defined as follows:

constant JANUARY is 1

However, this syntax is rather clumsy. Instead, the proposal will be made to remove constant declarations and simply replace them with global variables. For example, this would allow us to write:

int JANUARY = 1

This is not a strict replacement for the original constant declaration because it represents mutable state. However, through this proposal we could write the following:

final int JANUARY = 1

This is now a proper replacement for constant declarations.


Ownership here refers to the internal mechanism used within a compiler back-end for determining when to clone data. The following illustrates a minimal example:

function f(int[] xs) -> (int r):
   return |xs|

function g(int[] xs) -> (int r):
   int x = f(xs)
   return x

At the point of the function invocation, the compiler must determine whether or not to clone the array xs. In doing this, it cannot examine the body of the function being invoked (because this requires interprocedural analysis which is prohibitively expensive). Rather, the compiler can only use the function's signature (i.e. name, parameter types and requires / ensures clauses).

In deciding whether to clone xs above, the compiler can consider the remainder of the function body. There are two cases: either xs is used after the inovcation; or, it is not. If xs is not used after the invocation then it does not need to be cloned. However, if xs is used after the invocation then the compiler has no choice and must clone xs. This is unfortunate in this case as the clone was unnecessary (i.e. because xs is not assigned within the body of f()).

To address the above issue, this RFC proposes the introduction of the final modifier. This would allow f() above to be rewritten as follows:

function f(final int[] xs) -> (int r):
   return |xs|

The intention here is that the final modifier signals to any invocation sites that xs array will not be modified and, hence, they may pass in a borrowed reference to it.

Foreign Function Interface

The final modifier offers some benefits for the foreign function interface. For example, consider this simple Java class:

class Test {
  int f(int x) { return x; }

Without the final modifier, the closest type in Whiley for representing the type Test would be:

type Test is {
  function f(int) -> (int r),

NOTE: An open record is used to account for subclasses of Test. Also, for simplicity, we are ignoring members introduced by Object, etc.

The problem with the above is that it permits assignment to the field f. That is, the following is valid Whiley:

export method broken(&Test t):
   t.f = &(int x -> x)

This is problematic if we desire the Whiley type Test to represent actual instances of the Java class Test. Specifically, the problem is that actual instances of class Test do not support assignment to methods. However, using the final modifier we can more accurately model class Test with the following Whiley type:

type Test is {
  final function f(int) -> (int r),

This representation of class Test has the desired effect of rendering incorrect the method broken() above.

NOTE: Whilst Java does not permit assignment to methods it should be noted that other languages, such as JavaScript, do support such assignments.

Technical Details

The intention is that the final modifier can be applied to any lvalue location. Specifically, an lvalue identifies a variable which occupies a specific location in memory. The modifier is written at the declaration site of the given lvalue location. This includes the following:

  • Local Variable Declarations. The following illustrates such a usage:
function f(int x) -> (int r):
   final int y = x + 1
   return y
  • Parameter Declarations. The following illustrates such a usage:
function f(final int x) -> (int r):
   return x+1
  • Type Declarations. The following illustrates such a usage:
type fint is (final int x)
  • Field Declarations. The following illustrates such a usage:
type Point is {
  final int x,
  final int y
  • Reference Declarations. The following illustrates such a usage:
function f(&(final int) p) -> (int r):
   return *p


An important question is how subtyping is handled in the presence of final modifiers. This is relatively straightforward in that a type final T is considered distinct from T but they are both assignment compatible (i.e. subtypes). Thus, this is considered valid:

final int x = 1
int y = x

Likewise, the converse is also considered valid:

int x = 1
final int y = x

(there remain some questions as to how to safely deal with memory management here)

However, since final T is distinct from T it follows that this is not valid:

&int x = new 1
&(final int) y = x

And, likewise, that the converse is not valid either.

NOTE: an interesting question is whether or not we should be permitted to cast over final. For example, whether &(final int) y = (&(final int)) x should be permitted or not. Clearly, allowing this would break the usage of final in the context of a foreign function interface (where, in that case, final is being used as a capability).

Definite Unassignment Analysis

Definite Unassignment Analysis is the process of checking that a final variable is not assigned. This complements the existing concept of definite assignment analysis. For example, the following fails definite unassignment analysis:

function f(final int x) -> (int r):
   x = x + 1
   return x

This should report an error roughly as follows:

test.whiley:2: error: final parameter x may not be assigned
	x = x + 1;

(This is the error message given in Java for an attempt to assign to a final parameter)

An important question is whether or not definite unassignment analysis is checked in a flow insensitive or flow sensitive fashion. For example, the following is permitted under a flow sensitive analysis but not under an insensitive one:

function f(bool flag) -> (int r):
   final int y
   if flag:
      y = 1
      y = 2
   return y

The key here is that a flow sensitive analysis can determine variable y has exactly one assignment regardless of which execution path is taken and, hence, that the above is safe. This is the approach, for example, currently taken in Java and is considerably more flexible than the flow insensitive approach.

For the purposes of this proposal, definite unassignment analysis is assumed to be a flow insensitive activity. This is easier to implement that its flow sensitive counterpart. Furthermore, we can update this in a subsequent RFC if a more flexible approach is considered useful.


  • Definite Unassignment Analysis. This is the process of checking that a variable marked final is never assigned after initialisation.

  • Flow (In)Sensitive Analysis. A flow sensitive analysis can take into consideration the context in which a statement occurs, whilst a flow insensitive analysis cannot. For the purposes of this proposal, this means a flow sensitive definition unassignment analysis can take into consideration the number of other assignments may have occurred to a given variable prior to the current assignment being considered.

Drawbacks and Limitations

  • Backwards Compatibility. One obvious issue is that of binary compatibility between different versions of an API. Consider having released a public function or method with a final parameter. If in a subsequence version of that function the given parameter was no longer marked final, then this could potentially lead to a hidden linking error. That is, code compiled against the initial version would still appear to run against the later version, and yet this would clearly be unsafe. One way to protect against this would be to include the final modifier in the name mangle. Thus, its removal would generate a different mangle and lead to a link-time error.

Unresolved Issues

The benefits of supporting final for reasons of ownership remain somewhat unclear at this stage. Here are the known issues:

  • Ownership & Cloning. The suggested approach to parameters would mean that assigning a final parameter to a non-final variable requires a clone. Yet there are certainly some cases where this would lead to unnecessary cloning as well.

  • Ownership & Memory Management. In addition, there is the question of memory management. That is, who is responsible for deallocating a final variable? The suggested approach for final parameters would require responsibility to rest with the caller.

An alternative would be to introduce a specific modified (e.g. borrowed) to handle the issues of ownership that are being proposed here to be handled by final. However, that might be considered somewhat ugly as we would now have two modifiers instead of one.