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

KEEP for custom equals in inline classes #338

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
219 changes: 219 additions & 0 deletions proposals/custom-equals-in-value-classes.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
# Custom equals in value classes

* **Type**: Design proposal
* **Authors**: Vladislav Grechko
* **Status**: Prototype implemented
* **Issue**: [KT-24874](https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-24874/)

## Summary

Allow overriding `equals` from `Any` and declaring so-called *typed equals* in value classes.

## Motivation and use cases

### Collections

Suppose we want to implement wrapper for an object that implements `List` interface. We want this wrapper to be
light-weight and avoid allocation of wrapper object. This might be achieved by declaring following inline class:

```Kotlin
@JvmInline
value class SingletonList<T>(val element: T) : List<T> {
...
}
```

Since different implementations of `List` must be equal if they contain same elements, we have to
customize `equals(other: Any?)` in `SingletonList`.

> Note that passing instance of `SingletonList` as argument to non-inline function that takes `List` will lead to
> boxing and allocation a new object. For inline functions, boxing can be avoided when IR inliner is implemented.
> Related issue:
> [KT-40391](https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-40391/Inline-function-boxes-inline-class-type-argument)
>

### Units of measurement

Inline classes are well suited to represent units of measurement. It might be useful to establish custom equivalence
relation for them.

```Kotlin
@JvmInline
value class Degrees(val value: Double)


fun foo() {
// customize equality relation to make the set contain a single value
val uniqueAngles = setOf(Degrees(90.0), Degrees(-270.0))
}
```

```Kotlin
@JvmInline
value class Minutes(val value: Int)

@JvmInline
value class Seconds(val value: Int)


fun foo() {
// customize equality relation to make the set contain a single value
val uniqueTimeIntervals = setOf(Minutes(1), Seconds(60))
}
```

## Proposal

### Typed equals

Simply overriding `equals(other: Any?)` in value class would require boxing of the right-hand side operand of
every `'=='` comparison:

```Kotlin
@JvmInline
value class Degrees(val value: Double) {
override fun equals(other: Any?): Boolean {
...
}
}

fun foo() {
// have to box to pass to equals(other: Any?)
println(Degrees(0) == Degrees(45))
}
```

That is why in [KEEP for inline classes](https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/master/proposals/inline-classes.md) a new
concept of **typed equals** was proposed:

```Kotlin
@JvmInline
value class Degrees(val value: Double) {
@TypedEquals
fun equals(other: Degrees) = (value - other.value) % 360.0 == 0.0
}
```

Type of `other` will be unboxed during compilation and passing argument will not require boxing.

More precise, we define typed equals as a function such that:

* Has name `"equals"`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Better to make examples conform the restrictions. For example, the one above does not have the annotation.

* Declared as a member function of value class
* Has a single parameter which type is a star-projection of enclosing class
* We will elaborate on this restriction in the next section
* Returns `Boolean`
* Annotated with `@TypedEquals` annotation

Typed equals, as well as equals from `Any`, must define an equivalence relation, i.e. be symmetric, reflexive,
transitive and consistent.

We forbid typed equals to have type parameters, as well as default values for value parameter.

> From now, we will be calling equals from `Any` *untyped* equals, in contrast, to *typed* one.

### Interaction of typed and untyped equals

We need to establish consistency of typed and untyped equals, i.e. the following property:
> For any `x`, `y` such that `x`, `y` refer instances of an inline class, it must be true
> that `x.equals(y) == (x as Any).equals(y)`

We propose the following:

* If only typed equals is declared:
* Generate consistent untyped one. Implementation of untyped equals will be trying to cast the argument to
corresponding value class type and passing to typed equals if succeeded.
* If only untyped equals is declared:
* Generate consistent typed one. Implementation of typed equals will be boxing argument and passing it to untyped
equals. Implement special diagnostics to warn programmers about negative performance impact of boxing in
auto-generated code
* If both equals methods are declared:
* Consider programmer responsible for their consistency

Note, that in the first case on JVM level we will be casting argument to the raw type of value class, thus we will know
nothing about its type arguments. We emphasize this fact by requiring the parameter of typed equals to be
star-projection of the value class.

### Custom `hashCode`

It is obvious that the ability of overriding `equals` makes us allow overriding of `hashCode`.

## Other questions

### Inline classes over inline classes

Suppose we have an inline class `B` over inline class `A` and `A` declares typed equals. In this case,
default-generated equals in `B` will be comparing it underlying values using custom equals of `A`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will B require opt-in?

Copy link
Author

@grechkovlad grechkovlad Dec 20, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure. Any usage of A will require opt-in and B will use A in its primary constructor declaration


### Interaction with Valhalla

In its current prototype version `20-valhalla+20-75` Valhalla supports customization of equals and hashCode in values
classes. Therefore, we will be able to compile Kotlin value classes with custom equals to Valhalla values classes.

```Java
value class ValueClass {
int x;
public ValueClass(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
public boolean equals(ValueClass other) {
return (x - other.x) % 2 == 0;
}
@Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

First, this equals does not follow its contract. Second, how typed equals will be compiled into Valhalla class method?

if (other instanceof ValueClass) {
return equals((ValueClass)other);
}
return false;
}
@Override
public int hashCode() {
return 42;
}
}
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ValueClass zeroVal = new ValueClass(0);
ValueClass oneVal = new ValueClass(2);

Object zeroObj = zeroVal;

System.out.println(zeroVal.equals(oneVal)); // true
System.out.println(zeroObj.equals(oneVal)); // true
System.out.println(zeroObj.hashCode()); // 42
}
}
```

## Possible future improvements

### Typed equals in non-value classes

Introducing typed equals in non-value classes could help to get rid of boilerplate code:

```Kotlin
class A {
fun equals(other: A) {
//do check
...
}
}
```

instead of:

```Kotlin
class A {
override fun equals(other: Any?) {
if (other is A) {
//do check
...
}
return false
}
}
```

### Resolving references to typed equals in IDE

Resolving `'=='` operation to typed equals in IDE could let user navigate from invocation to declaration.