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

proposal: Go 2: language: make slices of constant strings constant if the indexes are constant #28591

Open
ainar-g opened this issue Nov 4, 2018 · 12 comments

Comments

@ainar-g
Copy link
Contributor

@ainar-g ainar-g commented Nov 4, 2018

This will probably be assigned a Go2 label, although I think that it could be done during Go 1.

Consider multiline string constants:

const multiline = `
This is a long text
that spans multiple lines
and then ends.
`

If you feed this text to a parser and it finds a problem on the first line ("This is a long text"), it will actually report that the error is on the second line because of the leading newline. One might think that this is easily solved by slicing the string:

const multiline = `
This is a long text
that spans multiple lines
and then ends.
`[1:]

But this won't compile. The Spec currently says:

(…) For untyped string operands the result is a non-constant value of type string. (…)

Why not make it constant? After all, len(multiline) is constant.


There are other solutions to this. One could just use multiline[1:] everywhere where one doesn't want the leading newline. Or start "This is a long text" on the first line, but that hurts readability and "editability". Another solution is to make multiline a variable. The use case is pretty obscure and there isn't an immediate need for this, so this proposal is more about a question, why are slices (and indexing!) of constant strings not constant in the first place?

@gopherbot gopherbot added this to the Proposal milestone Nov 4, 2018
@gopherbot gopherbot added the Proposal label Nov 4, 2018
@mvdan mvdan changed the title proposal: make slices of constant strings constant if the indexes are constant proposal: spec: make slices of constant strings constant if the indexes are constant Nov 5, 2018
@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor changed the title proposal: spec: make slices of constant strings constant if the indexes are constant proposal: Go 2: language: make slices of constant strings constant if the indexes are constant Nov 5, 2018
@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor added the Go2 label Nov 5, 2018
@ianlancetaylor

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor commented Nov 5, 2018

Marking as Go 2 because we've decided that all language changes are Go 2.

I know that this has been discussed in the past but I don't remember why it wasn't changed. Maybe simply because it rarely comes up in practice.

@ianlancetaylor

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor commented Dec 11, 2018

We should also consider accepting

const c = "abc"[1]
@griesemer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@griesemer griesemer commented Jan 29, 2020

It turns out that this proposed change is not backward-compatible after all ...

Consider "A"[0] : With the proposed change, this expression evaluates to the untyped byte constant 65. But if we try to negate this value, as in:

var _ = -"A"[0]

we will get an error: -"A"[0] (constant -65 of type byte) overflows byte . This is currently (without the change) valid code. Oops!

For similar reasons, constant index expressions are not backwards-compatible either. The length of a constant slice expression len("abc"[0:2]) is an untyped integer constant (3), but if we negate it and try to assign it to a variable of uint type, we will get an error.

var _ uint = -uint(len("abc"[0:2]))

(Without the change, these values are not constant, and the compiler won't complain.)

Fun times!

@griesemer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@griesemer griesemer commented Jan 29, 2020

Related: #11370, #11368.

@jimmyfrasche

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@jimmyfrasche jimmyfrasche commented Jan 29, 2020

Would

const (
  a = "abc"[iota]
  b
  c
)

be legal?

@griesemer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@griesemer griesemer commented Jan 29, 2020

@jimmyfrasche Very nice! Indeed it would.

@thepudds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@thepudds thepudds commented Jan 29, 2020

It turns out that this proposed change is not backward-compatible after all ...

@griesemer FWIW, my most immediate reaction would be to suggest postponing this from Go 1.15 if that is indeed that case (for most of the reasons discussed in the related golang-dev thread, including your comment here). This change does not seem worth triggering the first use of the go version directive (if that is what would need to happen).

edit: sorry, mangled link.

@gopherbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@gopherbot gopherbot commented Jan 30, 2020

Change https://golang.org/cl/216977 mentions this issue: go/types: constant string index and slice expressions are constant

@gopherbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@gopherbot gopherbot commented Jan 30, 2020

Change https://golang.org/cl/217119 mentions this issue: spec: constant string index and slice expressions return a constant

@bcmills

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@bcmills bcmills commented Feb 3, 2020

@thepudds

This change does not seem worth triggering the first use of the go version directive (if that is what would need to happen).

To the contrary! A minor, mostly-backward-compatible change seems like a great way to try out the mechanism without causing too much churn if it doesn't go as well as we expect.

@griesemer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@griesemer griesemer commented Feb 6, 2020

We discussed this issue in the proposal review committee. Since this proposal is not backward-compatible and we put a premium on language stability, we decided to not proceed with this for Go 1.15.

We discussed introducing a vet check instead, but it doesn't seem warranted since this change is essentially language fine-tuning - a "nice to have" if it were backward-compatible, but not important.

I will leave this open for future consideration, when non-backward compatible changes become viable due to universal use of modules.

@griesemer griesemer modified the milestones: Proposal, Backlog Feb 6, 2020
@alandonovan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@alandonovan alandonovan commented Feb 6, 2020

The degree to which a strict reading of backward compatibility leaves little room to maneuver is constantly surprising.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
9 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.