Add proposed feature specification for "implicit names".

working/3102 - implied-name/feature-specification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,374 @@
+# Dart Implied Parameter/Record Field Names
+
+Author: [email protected]<br>
+Version: 1.0
+
+## Pitch
+Writing the same name twice is annoying. That happens often when forwarding
+named arguments:
+```dart
+  var subscription = stream.listen(
+    onData,
+    onError: onError,
+    onDone: onDone,
+    cancelOnError: cancelOnError,
+  );
+```
+
+To avoid redundant repetition, this feature will allow you to omit the
+argument name if it's the same name as the expression providing the value.
+
+```dart
+  var subscription = stream.listen(
+    onData,
+    :onError,
+    :onDone,
+    :cancelOnError,
+  );
+```
+
+Same applies to record literal fields, where we have nice syntax
+for destructuring, but not for re-creating:
+```dart
+typedef Color = ({int red, int green, int blue, int alpha});
+
+Color colorWithAlpha(Color color, int newAlpha) {
+  var (:red, :green, :blue, alpha: _) = color;
+  return (red: red, green: green, blue: blue, alpha: newAlpha);
+}
+```
+which this feature will allow to be written as:
+```dart
+Color colorWithAlpha(Color color, int alpha) {
+  var (:red, :green, :blue, alpha: _) = color;
+  return (:red, :green, :blue, :alpha);
+}
+```
+
+## Specification
+
+The current grammar for a named argument is:
+```ebnf
+<namedArgument> ::= <label> <expression>
+```
+The [current grammar](../../accepted/3.0/records/feature-specification.md#record-expressions) for a record literal field:
+```ebnf
+recordField  ::= (identifier ':' )? expression
+```
+So basically the same.
+
+The new grammar is:
+```ebnf
+<namedArgument> ::= <namedExpression>
+
+<recordField> ::= <namedExpression> | <expression>
+
+<namedExpression> ::= <identifier>? `:' <expression>
+```
+
+This grammar change does not introduce any new ambiguities.
+A named record field and a named argument can *only* occur
+immediately after a `(` or a `,`, as the entire content until
+a following `,` or `)`.
+Starting with a `:` at that point is not currently possible.
+(Even if we allow metadata annotations inside argument lists or record literals,
+it's unambiguous whether those annotations includes a following identifier or
+not.)
+
+As a non-grammatical restriction, it's a **compile-time error**
+if a `<namedExpression>` omits the leading`<identifier>`, and the following
+expression is not a _single identifier expression_, as defined below.
+
+An expression `e` is a _single identifier expression with identifier *I*_ if
+and only if it is defined as such by one of the following rules,
+where `s` is, inductively, a single identifier expression with identifier *I*:
+
+*   If `e` is a `<primary>` expression which is an `<identifier>`,
+    it is a single identifier expression with that `<identifier>` as identifier.
+*   `s!`: If `e` is a `<primary> <selector>*` production where `<selector>*`
+    is the single selector `` `!' ``, and `<primary>` is `s`,
+    then `e` is a single identifier expression with identifier *I*.
+*   `s as T`: If `e` is a `<relationalExpression>` of the form
+    `<bitwiseOrExpression> <typeCast>` and the `<bitwiseOrExpression>` is `s`
+    then `e` is a single identifier expression with identifier *I*.
+*   `(s)`: If `e` is a `<primary>` production of the form
+    `` `(' <expression> `)' `` and the `<expression>` is `s`, then `e` is a single identifier expression with the same identifier as
+    the `<expression>`.
+
+_In short, an identifier expression is a single identifier expression,
+and you can then wrap it in null-assertions, parentheses, or casts,
+and it will still be a single identifier expression with the same identifier. The value if `id` is the same as the value of
+`(id! as List<num>)` &mdash; if it has a value._
+_The resulting expression still evaluates to the value of the original
+identifier, if it doesn't throw first._
+
+The _name of a `<namedExpression>`_ is then:
+* If the named expression has a leading identifier before the colon,
+  then that identifier.
+* Otherwise the following expression must be a single identifier expression
+  with an identifier *I*, and then the name of the named expression is *I*.
+
+The name of a `<namedArgument>` or a named `<recordField>` is the name of
+its `<namedExpression>`.
+
+Where the language specification refers to a named argument's name,
+it now uses this definition of the name of a `<namedArgument>`.
+
+Where the Record specification for a record literal refers to a field name,
+it now uses this definition.
+
+## Semantics
+
+There are no changes to static or runtime semantics, other than extending the
+notion of "name of a named argument" and "name of a field" to the name of the
+single identifier expression following an unnamed `:`.
+
+After that, there is no distinction between `(name: name,)` and `(: name,)`,
+both syntaxes introduce a named argument or record field with name `name`
+and expression `name`, and the semantics is only defined in terms of those
+properties.
+
+
+## Examples
+
+From `sdk/lib/_http/http_impl.dart` (among many others):
+```dart
+  return _incoming.listen(
+    onData,
+    :onError,
+    :onDone,
+    :cancelOnError,
+  );
+```
+
+From `pkg/_fe_analyzer_shared/lib/src/type_inference/type_analyzer.dart`:
+```dart
+    return new SwitchStatementTypeAnalysisResult(
+      :hasDefault,
+      :isExhaustive,
+      :lastCaseTerminates,
+      :requiresExhaustivenessValidation,
+      :scrutineeType,
+      :switchCaseCompletesNormallyErrors,
+      :nonBooleanGuardErrors,
+      :guardTypes,
+    );
+```
+
+From `pkg/dds/lib/src/dap/isolate_manager.dart`:
+```dart
+  final uniqueBreakpointId = (:isolateId, :breakpointId);
+```
+
+## Migration
+
+None.
+
+## Implementation
+
+Experiment flag name could be `implicit-names`.
+
+## Tooling
+
+Analysis server can suggest removing a redundant name before a `:`.
+
+There should *probably* be a lint to report when an argument name is redundant.
+Because if there isn't, someone will almost immediately ask for one.
+Whether one likes omitting the name or not is a matter of taste, so it should
+be an optional lint, not just a warning. It should be easy to have a fix.
+
+A _rename operation_ may need to recognize if it changes a parameter
+name or an identifier used as argument, and insert an argument name
+if now necessary. That is:
+*   If a name changes, then if any occurrences of that name is in
+    single identifier position of an implicitly named argument,
+    the old name must be inserted as explicit argument name.
+*   If a named parameter name changes, then any invocation of the function
+    which uses an implicitly named argument must have the new name
+    inserted as explicit argument name.
+
+A rename can also introduce new possibilities for removing argument names.
+(It may be better to not do that automatically, and rely on the user fixing
+the positions afterwards. Or only do it automatically if the lint is enabled.)
+
+## Discussion
+
+The definition of "single identifier expression" is the place this feature
+can be tweaked.
+
+It's currently restricted to expressions where the value of the expression
+is always the value of evaluating a single identifier.
+Also, that identifier is always the *only* identifier of the expression,
+and can only be preceded by `(`s.
+
+The identifier expression can be wrapped in casts `!` or `as T`
+or in parentheses, but none of those operations change the value
+of the expression away from the value of evaluating the identifier,
+only, potentially, whether it evaluates to a value at all.
+
+Those are properties chosen to make it easier to read and understand
+a missing name, but nothing is technically necessary,
+we could allow any expression where we can, somehow, derive a significant
+identifier.
+The limitation to the name being the next non-`(` token should hopefully make it
+*very easy* to find the name.
+
+Possible additions, initially or in the future, could include the following
+expression forms.
+
+### Cascades
+
+A cascade expression like `e..selector` or `e?..selector` also satisfies
+that the value of the expression is the value of the leading sub-expression.
+It could be made a single identifier expression, and since cascades are
+often used in argument position, that is exactly where we would *want*
+to use the shorter syntax.
+
+The rule for single identifier expressions would add another rule:
+
+> *   `s..cascade`:
+>    *   If `e` a `<cascade>` of the form ``<cascade> `..' <cascadeSection>``
+>        and the `<cascade>` is `s`,
+>        then `e` is a single identifier expression with identifier *I*.
+>    *   If `e` a `<cascade>` of the form
+>        ``<conditionalExpression> (`?..' | `..') <cascadeSection>``
+>        and the `<conditionalExpression>` is `s`,
+>        then `e` is a single identifier expression with identifier *I*.
+
+The other cases do not contain any other identifier than the one that
+provides the value of the expression. A cascade could have any expression
+after the `..`, so it would be even more important for readability that
+the reader knows to look at the very next identifier for the name.
+
+Examples of uses that could be made shorter (from `package:csslib`):
+```dart
+  stylesheet = parseCss(input, errors: errors..clear());
+```
+which would become:
+```dart
+  stylesheet = parseCss(input, :errors..clear());
+```
+
+An example from Flutter:
+```dart
+ TextSpan(text: offScreenText, recognizer: recognizer..onTap = () {})
+```
+which would become:
+```dart
+ TextSpan(text: offScreenText, :recognizer..onTap = () {})
+```
+
+Also, if we *ever* want to allow a prefixed identifier, making it possible
+to abbreviate `foo(bar: source.bar)` to `foo(:source.bar)`, then it's confusing
+that the very syntactically similar `(:a.b)`and  `(:a..b)` mean
+`(b: a.b)` and `(a:..b)` respectively. Not surprising since the *value* of the
+expression comes from something named `b` in one case and something names `a`
+in the other, but does make it easier to lose track of which name goes where.
+_(With `(:a.b)` meaning `(b: a.b)`, it's more like the *last* identifier is
+the one that provides the name, and a cascade would break that, leaving the
+reader with no easy rule for where to find the significant identifier.)_
+
+Another example simplified from actual code:
+```dart
+  static Uri addQueryParameters(
+      Uri uri,
+      Map<String, String> queryParameters,
+  ) => uri.replace(:queryParameters..addAll(uri.queryParameters));
+```
+
+And from a Flutter program using a null-aware cascade:
+```dart
+        child: TextField(
+          :controller?..text = initialValue,
+          maxLines: 5,
+          :onChanged,
+        ),
+```
+
+### Increments
+
+Expressions of the form `++id`/`--id` or `id++`/`id--` also evaluate to
+the value of `id`, either as it was when read for `id++`, or what it is
+now for `++id`, and the `id` is the first identifier of the expression.
+
+As such, they are within the design parameters that are otherwise used,
+and could be allowed. _They'd only be valid directly on the identifier,
+not after wrapping with `!`, `as T` or `(...)`._
+
+Increments are also often used in argument position, so it would fit
+in that way too.
+
+I'd expect it to be less common that a *counter* has the same
+name as the *value*. Passing the value of a mutable variable as
+an argument means that the are less likely to have the *same meaning*,
+even if they have the same value.
+
+For now, it's not included. It can easily be added if an real need
+is discovered.
+
+### Assignments
+
+An expression of the form `id1 = id2` is an expression which has the same
+value as the identifier, `id2`.
+(We don't know for sure what assigning to `id1` means,
+or if it can even be read, but we know that the value of the expression
+is the value of evaluating `id2`.)
+
+Assignments are not included because that identifier is not the next identifier
+of the expression, and because it can easily be confusing which identifier
+defines the name. (And more so for more steps, like `:foo = bar = baz`.)
+
+It would be *more consistent* to use the identifier `id1`.
+If assignment behaves *as it looks like it should*, then `id1` is a name for
+the value of the expression. It is also the first identifier, which makes
+it easy to find, and it would also open the door to `id += 2` &mdash;
+to generalize `id++` &mdash; or to `id ??= 42`, where the latter makes good
+sense in a parameter position.
+
+The most generally useful choice would be that `id = e` and `id op= e`
+would count as `id`, since the value of the expression is the (new) value
+of `id`, and `id` is the first identifier of the expression.
+
+Probably likely to be confusing.
+The expression occurs in parameter or record-field position,
+which means that there is *another* implicit assignment going on.
+
+_If we also want to allow `:a.b` to be short for `b:a.b`, then allowing
+assignment puts the significant identifier in the middle: `:e1.id = e2`,
+which can make it hard to find.
+
+### Property access
+
+As alluded to above, we could allow `(:e.b)` to mean `(b: e.b)`,
+using the name of a final selector to represent the value it
+evaluates to.
+
+That is consistent with using plain identifiers that refer to instance getters
+inside the declaring context.
+It would allow referring to identifiers imported with a prefix
+or accessing an identifier from outside of its scope just as briefly
+as inside its scope.
+
+It would mean that the operative identifier is no longer the *first*
+identifier of the expression. Rather, it would be the last one,
+which conflicts with allowing cascades or assignments, that both
+add something after the identifier. A `(:a.b..c.d)` or `(:a.b=c.d)` would
+have the missing name somewhere in the middle of the expression,
+and not necessarily easy to find.
+
+### Future additions.
+
+Extending the "single identifier expression" to more syntaxes is non-breaking.
+It turns something that would be a compile-time error into something else.
+
+That means that we can always add more cases later.
+The initially proposed expressions are only the simplest of cases,
+where there is only one identifier in the expression at all,
+so no choice of it being the first or last identifier has been made.
+(And increments are omitted because they are similar to assignments,
+and it feels like half a feature to only handle increments by themselves.)
+
+## Revision history
+
+* 1.0: Initial version
+