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

: Unit = formatting #77

Closed
JLLeitschuh opened this issue Sep 1, 2017 · 9 comments
Closed

: Unit = formatting #77

JLLeitschuh opened this issue Sep 1, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

@JLLeitschuh
Copy link
Contributor

If I have an interface like this in java:

public interface Plugin<T> {
    void apply(T target);
}

If I override this in kotlin:

class PluginImpl : Plugin<Cat> {
    override fun apply(target : Cat) : Unit =
        doSomething(target)

    private fun doSomething(target: Cat) : String {
        // Do some other complex logic...
        return "Cat"
    }
}

The compiler requires you to have the return type of Unit or it won't compile.

@shyiko
Copy link
Collaborator

shyiko commented Sep 1, 2017

@JLLeitschuh I believe you meant (something similar to)

class PluginImpl : Plugin<Cat> {
    override fun apply(target : Cat) : Unit =
        target.run { doSomething(target) }

    private fun doSomething(target: Cat) : String {
        // Do some other complex logic...
        return "Cat"
    }
}

(without target.run { ... } it won't compile due to Type Mismatch: Required Unit, Found String (at least using [email protected])).

Anyway, I'm actually surprised that

    override fun apply(target : Cat) : Unit =
        target.run { doSomething(target) }

compiles fine when

    override fun apply(target : Cat) : Unit =
        doSomething(target)

doesn't (return type of target.run { doSomething(target) } and doSomething(target) is the same after all = String).
Given this inconsistency I think it fair to say that we have one more reason for not allowing explicit : Unit return type (unless I'm missing something of course). In other words,

    override fun apply(target : Cat) : Unit =
        target.run { doSomething(target) }

should be changed to

    override fun apply(target : Cat) {
        target.run { doSomething(target) } // target.run { } is obviously not necessary here 
    }

(feel free to reopen if I missed something)

@shyiko shyiko closed this as completed Sep 1, 2017
@JLLeitschuh
Copy link
Contributor Author

JLLeitschuh commented Sep 1, 2017

You may be right.
The example that I have might be wrong.

Here's an example where I know the behaviour.
This compiles fine:

class KotlinScriptBasePlugin : Plugin<Project> {
    override fun apply(project: Project) : Unit =
        project.run {
            rootProject.apply<KotlinScriptRootPlugin>()
            task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
        }
}

This does not compile:

class KotlinScriptBasePlugin : Plugin<Project> {
    override fun apply(project: Project) =
        project.run {
            rootProject.apply<KotlinScriptRootPlugin>()
            task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
        }
}

This is under kotlin version 1.1.4-3

I can't re-open as you're an admin on the repo and closing the issue prevents me from doing so.

@shyiko
Copy link
Collaborator

shyiko commented Sep 1, 2017

My point is - it shouldn't compile, because

class KotlinScriptBasePlugin : Plugin<Project> {
    override fun apply(project: Project) : Unit =
        task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
}

won't (see my previous comment).
Notice that return type of

project.run {
    rootProject.apply<KotlinScriptRootPlugin>()
    task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
}

and

task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")

is the same (Task?).
To me it looks like something is wrong with type inference.
Replace : Unit with { ... } and you should be good to go.

@JLLeitschuh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Huh... Interesting.
So this does not compile:

class KotlinScriptBasePlugin : Plugin<Project> {
    override fun apply(project: Project) : Unit =
        project.task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
}

I think what the compiler is secretly doing is turning this:

project.run {
    rootProject.apply<KotlinScriptRootPlugin>()
    task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
}

Into this:

project.run {
    rootProject.apply<KotlinScriptRootPlugin>()
    task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
    return
}

I would guess that this is so that you can write small lines of code like that and not have to worry about adding a return statement at the end.


As it stands this does compile:

class KotlinScriptBasePlugin : Plugin<Project> {
    override fun apply(project: Project) : Unit =
        project.run {
            rootProject.apply<KotlinScriptRootPlugin>()
            task<PrintAccessors>("kotlinDslAccessorsReport")
        }
}

Any code formatter should have the behaviour of taking an input that compiles and returning an output that also compiles. This is not currently the behaviour of ktlint in this case.

@shyiko
Copy link
Collaborator

shyiko commented Sep 1, 2017

@JLLeitschuh fair enough

@shyiko shyiko reopened this Sep 1, 2017
@shyiko
Copy link
Collaborator

shyiko commented Sep 1, 2017

So basically what we need to do here: make https://github.com/shyiko/ktlint/blob/master/ktlint-ruleset-standard/src/main/kotlin/com/github/shyiko/ktlint/ruleset/standard/NoUnitReturnRule.kt rewrite : Unit = to { ... } instead of simply dropping : Unit.

@shyiko shyiko changed the title Must have explicit type in method signature when overriding other method : Unit = formatting Sep 1, 2017
@JLLeitschuh
Copy link
Contributor Author

JLLeitschuh commented Sep 1, 2017

I would argue that's not the correct solution. The correct solution in my mind would be to not remove the Unit return if the method if the method uses the = notation.

A little bit more explicitly:

  • : Unit {} In this case : Unit should be removed
  • : Unit = in this case : Unit should not be removed as doing so changes the return type of the method. If the Unit is removed in this case then the formatter is changing the method signature.

If we try to go down your route by adding { ... } then you have to get into the business of getting the indentation correct for code inside of that block. That seems like a path that is going to lead to nothing but pain and suffering.

@shyiko
Copy link
Collaborator

shyiko commented Sep 1, 2017

@JLLeitschuh agreed

shyiko added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 1, 2017
@shyiko
Copy link
Collaborator

shyiko commented Sep 1, 2017

Fixed in 0.9.2 (should become available through Maven Central within the next ~25min).
Thank you, as usual 😉

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants