Index: third_party/protobuf/docs/swift/DesignDoc.md |
diff --git a/third_party/protobuf/docs/swift/DesignDoc.md b/third_party/protobuf/docs/swift/DesignDoc.md |
new file mode 100644 |
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..364a4d3f1b8eca71a495dcf87540b47b3d9f0c0c |
--- /dev/null |
+++ b/third_party/protobuf/docs/swift/DesignDoc.md |
@@ -0,0 +1,674 @@ |
+# Protocol Buffers in Swift |
+ |
+## Objective |
+ |
+This document describes the user-facing API and internal implementation of |
+proto2 and proto3 messages in Apple’s Swift programming language. |
+ |
+One of the key goals of protobufs is to provide idiomatic APIs for each |
+language. In that vein, **interoperability with Objective-C is a non-goal of |
+this proposal.** Protobuf users who need to pass messages between Objective-C |
+and Swift code in the same application should use the existing Objective-C proto |
+library. The goal of the effort described here is to provide an API for protobuf |
+messages that uses features specific to Swift—optional types, algebraic |
+enumerated types, value types, and so forth—in a natural way that will delight, |
+rather than surprise, users of the language. |
+ |
+## Naming |
+ |
+* By convention, both typical protobuf message names and Swift structs/classes |
+ are `UpperCamelCase`, so for most messages, the name of a message can be the |
+ same as the name of its generated type. (However, see the discussion below |
+ about prefixes under [Packages](#packages).) |
+ |
+* Enum cases in protobufs typically are `UPPERCASE_WITH_UNDERSCORES`, whereas |
+ in Swift they are `lowerCamelCase` (as of the Swift 3 API design |
+ guidelines). We will transform the names to match Swift convention, using |
+ a whitelist similar to the Objective-C compiler plugin to handle commonly |
+ used acronyms. |
+ |
+* Typical fields in proto messages are `lowercase_with_underscores`, while in |
+ Swift they are `lowerCamelCase`. We will transform the names to match |
+ Swift convention by removing the underscores and uppercasing the subsequent |
+ letter. |
+ |
+## Swift reserved words |
+ |
+Swift has a large set of reserved words—some always reserved and some |
+contextually reserved (that is, they can be used as identifiers in contexts |
+where they would not be confused). As of Swift 2.2, the set of always-reserved |
+words is: |
+ |
+``` |
+_, #available, #column, #else, #elseif, #endif, #file, #function, #if, #line, |
+#selector, as, associatedtype, break, case, catch, class, continue, default, |
+defer, deinit, do, dynamicType, else, enum, extension, fallthrough, false, for, |
+func, guard, if, import, in, init, inout, internal, is, let, nil, operator, |
+private, protocol, public, repeat, rethrows, return, self, Self, static, |
+struct, subscript, super, switch, throw, throws, true, try, typealias, var, |
+where, while |
+``` |
+ |
+The set of contextually reserved words is: |
+ |
+``` |
+associativity, convenience, dynamic, didSet, final, get, infix, indirect, |
+lazy, left, mutating, none, nonmutating, optional, override, postfix, |
+precedence, prefix, Protocol, required, right, set, Type, unowned, weak, |
+willSet |
+``` |
+ |
+It is possible to use any reserved word as an identifier by escaping it with |
+backticks (for example, ``let `class` = 5``). Other name-mangling schemes would |
+require us to transform the names themselves (for example, by appending an |
+underscore), which requires us to then ensure that the new name does not collide |
+with something else in the same namespace. |
+ |
+While the backtick feature may not be widely known by all Swift developers, a |
+small amount of user education can address this and it seems like the best |
+approach. We can unconditionally surround all property names with backticks to |
+simplify generation. |
+ |
+Some remapping will still be required, though, to avoid collisions between |
+generated properties and the names of methods and properties defined in the base |
+protocol/implementation of messages. |
+ |
+# Features of Protocol Buffers |
+ |
+This section describes how the features of the protocol buffer syntaxes (proto2 |
+and proto3) map to features in Swift—what the code generated from a proto will |
+look like, and how it will be implemented in the underlying library. |
+ |
+## Packages |
+ |
+Modules are the main form of namespacing in Swift, but they are not declared |
+using syntactic constructs like namespaces in C++ or packages in Java. Instead, |
+they are tied to build targets in Xcode (or, in the future with open-source |
+Swift, declarations in a Swift Package Manager manifest). They also do not |
+easily support nesting submodules (Clang module maps support this, but pure |
+Swift does not yet provide a way to define submodules). |
+ |
+We will generate types with fully-qualified underscore-delimited names. For |
+example, a message `Baz` in package `foo.bar` would generate a struct named |
+`Foo_Bar_Baz`. For each fully-qualified proto message, there will be exactly one |
+unique type symbol emitted in the generated binary. |
+ |
+Users are likely to balk at the ugliness of underscore-delimited names for every |
+generated type. To improve upon this situation, we will add a new string file |
+level option, `swift_package_typealias`, that can be added to `.proto` files. |
+When present, this will cause `typealias`es to be added to the generated Swift |
+messages that replace the package name prefix with the provided string. For |
+example, the following `.proto` file: |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+option swift_package_typealias = "FBP"; |
+package foo.bar; |
+ |
+message Baz { |
+ // Message fields |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+would generate the following Swift source: |
+ |
+```swift |
+public struct Foo_Bar_Baz { |
+ // Message fields and other methods |
+} |
+ |
+typealias FBPBaz = Foo_Bar_Baz |
+``` |
+ |
+It should be noted that this type alias is recorded in the generated |
+`.swiftmodule` so that code importing the module can refer to it, but it does |
+not cause a new symbol to be generated in the compiled binary (i.e., we do not |
+risk compiled size bloat by adding `typealias`es for every type). |
+ |
+Other strategies to handle packages that were considered and rejected can be |
+found in [Appendix A](#appendix-a-rejected-strategies-to-handle-packages). |
+ |
+## Messages |
+ |
+Proto messages are natural value types and we will generate messages as structs |
+instead of classes. Users will benefit from Swift’s built-in behavior with |
+regard to mutability. We will define a `ProtoMessage` protocol that defines the |
+common methods and properties for all messages (such as serialization) and also |
+lets users treat messages polymorphically. Any shared method implementations |
+that do not differ between individual messages can be implemented in a protocol |
+extension. |
+ |
+The backing storage itself for fields of a message will be managed by a |
+`ProtoFieldStorage` type that uses an internal dictionary keyed by field number, |
+and whose values are the value of the field with that number (up-cast to Swift’s |
+`Any` type). This class will provide type-safe getters and setters so that |
+generated messages can manipulate this storage, and core serialization logic |
+will live here as well. Furthermore, factoring the storage out into a separate |
+type, rather than inlining the fields as stored properties in the message |
+itself, lets us implement copy-on-write efficiently to support passing around |
+large messages. (Furthermore, because the messages themselves are value types, |
+inlining fields is not possible if the fields are submessages of the same type, |
+or a type that eventually includes a submessage of the same type.) |
+ |
+### Required fields (proto2 only) |
+ |
+Required fields in proto2 messages seem like they could be naturally represented |
+by non-optional properties in Swift, but this presents some problems/concerns. |
+ |
+Serialization APIs permit partial serialization, which allows required fields to |
+remain unset. Furthermore, other language APIs still provide `has*` and `clear*` |
+methods for required fields, and knowing whether a property has a value when the |
+message is in memory is still useful. |
+ |
+For example, an e-mail draft message may have the “to” address required on the |
+wire, but when the user constructs it in memory, it doesn’t make sense to force |
+a value until they provide one. We only want to force a value to be present when |
+the message is serialized to the wire. Using non-optional properties prevents |
+this use case, and makes client usage awkward because the user would be forced |
+to select a sentinel or placeholder value for any required fields at the time |
+the message was created. |
+ |
+### Default values |
+ |
+In proto2, fields can have a default value specified that may be a value other |
+than the default value for its corresponding language type (for example, a |
+default value of 5 instead of 0 for an integer). When reading a field that is |
+not explicitly set, the user expects to get that value. This makes Swift |
+optionals (i.e., `Foo?`) unsuitable for fields in general. Unfortunately, we |
+cannot implement our own “enhanced optional” type without severely complicating |
+usage (Swift’s use of type inference and its lack of implicit conversions would |
+require manual unwrapping of every property value). |
+ |
+Instead, we can use **implicitly unwrapped optionals.** For example, a property |
+generated for a field of type `int32` would have Swift type `Int32!`. These |
+properties would behave with the following characteristics, which mirror the |
+nil-resettable properties used elsewhere in Apple’s SDKs (for example, |
+`UIView.tintColor`): |
+ |
+* Assigning a non-nil value to a property sets the field to that value. |
+* Assigning nil to a property clears the field (its internal representation is |
+ nilled out). |
+* Reading the value of a property returns its value if it is set, or returns |
+ its default value if it is not set. Reading a property never returns nil. |
+ |
+The final point in the list above implies that the optional cannot be checked to |
+determine if the field is set to a value other than its default: it will never |
+be nil. Instead, we must provide `has*` methods for each field to allow the user |
+to check this. These methods will be public in proto2. In proto3, these methods |
+will be private (if generated at all), since the user can test the returned |
+value against the zero value for that type. |
+ |
+### Autocreation of nested messages |
+ |
+For convenience, dotting into an unset field representing a nested message will |
+return an instance of that message with default values. As in the Objective-C |
+implementation, this does not actually cause the field to be set until the |
+returned message is mutated. Fortunately, thanks to the way mutability of value |
+types is implemented in Swift, the language automatically handles the |
+reassignment-on-mutation for us. A static singleton instance containing default |
+values can be associated with each message that can be returned when reading, so |
+copies are only made by the Swift runtime when mutation occurs. For example, |
+given the following proto: |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+message Node { |
+ Node child = 1; |
+ string value = 2 [default = "foo"]; |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+The following Swift code would act as commented, where setting deeply nested |
+properties causes the copies and mutations to occur as the assignment statement |
+is unwound: |
+ |
+```swift |
+var node = Node() |
+ |
+let s = node.child.child.value |
+// 1. node.child returns the "default Node". |
+// 2. Reading .child on the result of (1) returns the same default Node. |
+// 3. Reading .value on the result of (2) returns the default value "foo". |
+ |
+node.child.child.value = "bar" |
+// 4. Setting .value on the default Node causes a copy to be made and sets |
+// the property on that copy. Subsequently, the language updates the |
+// value of "node.child.child" to point to that copy. |
+// 5. Updating "node.child.child" in (4) requires another copy, because |
+// "node.child" was also the instance of the default node. The copy is |
+// assigned back to "node.child". |
+// 6. Setting "node.child" in (5) is a simple value reassignment, since |
+// "node" is a mutable var. |
+``` |
+ |
+In other words, the generated messages do not internally have to manage parental |
+relationships to backfill the appropriate properties on mutation. Swift provides |
+this for free. |
+ |
+## Scalar value fields |
+ |
+Proto scalar value fields will map to Swift types in the following way: |
+ |
+.proto Type | Swift Type |
+----------- | ------------------- |
+`double` | `Double` |
+`float` | `Float` |
+`int32` | `Int32` |
+`int64` | `Int64` |
+`uint32` | `UInt32` |
+`uint64` | `UInt64` |
+`sint32` | `Int32` |
+`sint64` | `Int64` |
+`fixed32` | `UInt32` |
+`fixed64` | `UInt64` |
+`sfixed32` | `Int32` |
+`sfixed64` | `Int64` |
+`bool` | `Bool` |
+`string` | `String` |
+`bytes` | `Foundation.NSData` |
+ |
+The proto spec defines a number of integral types that map to the same Swift |
+type; for example, `intXX`, `sintXX`, and `sfixedXX` are all signed integers, |
+and `uintXX` and `fixedXX` are both unsigned integers. No other language |
+implementation distinguishes these further, so we do not do so either. The |
+rationale is that the various types only serve to distinguish how the value is |
+**encoded on the wire**; once loaded in memory, the user is not concerned about |
+these variations. |
+ |
+Swift’s lack of implicit conversions among types will make it slightly annoying |
+to use these types in a context expecting an `Int`, or vice-versa, but since |
+this is a data-interchange format with explicitly-sized fields, we should not |
+hide that information from the user. Users will have to explicitly write |
+`Int(message.myField)`, for example. |
+ |
+## Embedded message fields |
+ |
+Embedded message fields can be represented using an optional variable of the |
+generated message type. Thus, the message |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+message Foo { |
+ Bar bar = 1; |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+would be represented in Swift as |
+ |
+```swift |
+public struct Foo: ProtoMessage { |
+ public var bar: Bar! { |
+ get { ... } |
+ set { ... } |
+ } |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+If the user explicitly sets `bar` to nil, or if it was never set when read from |
+the wire, retrieving the value of `bar` would return a default, statically |
+allocated instance of `Bar` containing default values for its fields. This |
+achieves the desired behavior for default values in the same way that scalar |
+fields are designed, and also allows users to deep-drill into complex object |
+graphs to get or set fields without checking for nil at each step. |
+ |
+## Enum fields |
+ |
+The design and implementation of enum fields will differ somewhat drastically |
+depending on whether the message being generated is a proto2 or proto3 message. |
+ |
+### proto2 enums |
+ |
+For proto2, we do not need to be concerned about unknown enum values, so we can |
+use the simple raw-value enum syntax provided by Swift. So the following enum in |
+proto2: |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+enum ContentType { |
+ TEXT = 0; |
+ IMAGE = 1; |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+would become this Swift enum: |
+ |
+```swift |
+public enum ContentType: Int32, NilLiteralConvertible { |
+ case text = 0 |
+ case image = 1 |
+ |
+ public init(nilLiteral: ()) { |
+ self = .text |
+ } |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+See below for the discussion about `NilLiteralConvertible`. |
+ |
+### proto3 enums |
+ |
+For proto3, we need to be able to preserve unknown enum values that may come |
+across the wire so that they can be written back if unmodified. We can |
+accomplish this in Swift by using a case with an associated value for unknowns. |
+So the following enum in proto3: |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+enum ContentType { |
+ TEXT = 0; |
+ IMAGE = 1; |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+would become this Swift enum: |
+ |
+```swift |
+public enum ContentType: RawRepresentable, NilLiteralConvertible { |
+ case text |
+ case image |
+ case UNKNOWN_VALUE(Int32) |
+ |
+ public typealias RawValue = Int32 |
+ |
+ public init(nilLiteral: ()) { |
+ self = .text |
+ } |
+ |
+ public init(rawValue: RawValue) { |
+ switch rawValue { |
+ case 0: self = .text |
+ case 1: self = .image |
+ default: self = .UNKNOWN_VALUE(rawValue) |
+ } |
+ |
+ public var rawValue: RawValue { |
+ switch self { |
+ case .text: return 0 |
+ case .image: return 1 |
+ case .UNKNOWN_VALUE(let value): return value |
+ } |
+ } |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+Note that the use of a parameterized case prevents us from inheriting from the |
+raw `Int32` type; Swift does not allow an enum with a raw type to have cases |
+with arguments. Instead, we must implement the raw value initializer and |
+computed property manually. The `UNKNOWN_VALUE` case is explicitly chosen to be |
+"ugly" so that it stands out and does not conflict with other possible case |
+names. |
+ |
+Using this approach, proto3 consumers must always have a default case or handle |
+the `.UNKNOWN_VALUE` case to satisfy case exhaustion in a switch statement; the |
+Swift compiler considers it an error if switch statements are not exhaustive. |
+ |
+### NilLiteralConvertible conformance |
+ |
+This is required to clean up the usage of enum-typed properties in switch |
+statements. Unlike other field types, enum properties cannot be |
+implicitly-unwrapped optionals without requiring that uses in switch statements |
+be explicitly unwrapped. For example, if we consider a message with the enum |
+above, this usage will fail to compile: |
+ |
+```swift |
+// Without NilLiteralConvertible conformance on ContentType |
+public struct SomeMessage: ProtoMessage { |
+ public var contentType: ContentType! { ... } |
+} |
+ |
+// ERROR: no case named text or image |
+switch someMessage.contentType { |
+ case .text: { ... } |
+ case .image: { ... } |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+Even though our implementation guarantees that `contentType` will never be nil, |
+if it is an optional type, its cases would be `some` and `none`, not the cases |
+of the underlying enum type. In order to use it in this context, the user must |
+write `someMessage.contentType!` in their switch statement. |
+ |
+Making the enum itself `NilLiteralConvertible` permits us to make the property |
+non-optional, so the user can still set it to nil to clear it (i.e., reset it to |
+its default value), while eliminating the need to explicitly unwrap it in a |
+switch statement. |
+ |
+```swift |
+// With NilLiteralConvertible conformance on ContentType |
+public struct SomeMessage: ProtoMessage { |
+ // Note that the property type is no longer optional |
+ public var contentType: ContentType { ... } |
+} |
+ |
+// OK: Compiles and runs as expected |
+switch someMessage.contentType { |
+ case .text: { ... } |
+ case .image: { ... } |
+} |
+ |
+// The enum can be reset to its default value this way |
+someMessage.contentType = nil |
+``` |
+ |
+One minor oddity with this approach is that nil will be auto-converted to the |
+default value of the enum in any context, not just field assignment. In other |
+words, this is valid: |
+ |
+```swift |
+func foo(contentType: ContentType) { ... } |
+foo(nil) // Inside foo, contentType == .text |
+``` |
+ |
+That being said, the advantage of being able to simultaneously support |
+nil-resettability and switch-without-unwrapping outweighs this side effect, |
+especially if appropriately documented. It is our hope that a new form of |
+resettable properties will be added to Swift that eliminates this inconsistency. |
+Some community members have already drafted or sent proposals for review that |
+would benefit our designs: |
+ |
+* [SE-0030: Property Behaviors] |
+ (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0030-property-behavior-decls.md) |
+* [Drafted: Resettable Properties] |
+ (https://github.com/patters/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0000-resettable-properties.md) |
+ |
+### Enum aliases |
+ |
+The `allow_alias` option in protobuf slightly complicates the use of Swift enums |
+to represent that type, because raw values of cases in an enum must be unique. |
+Swift lets us define static variables in an enum that alias actual cases. For |
+example, the following protobuf enum: |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+enum Foo { |
+ option allow_alias = true; |
+ BAR = 0; |
+ BAZ = 0; |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+will be represented in Swift as: |
+ |
+```swift |
+public enum Foo: Int32, NilLiteralConvertible { |
+ case bar = 0 |
+ static public let baz = bar |
+ |
+ // ... etc. |
+} |
+ |
+// Can still use .baz shorthand to reference the alias in contexts |
+// where the type is inferred |
+``` |
+ |
+That is, we use the first name as the actual case and use static variables for |
+the other aliases. One drawback to this approach is that the static aliases |
+cannot be used as cases in a switch statement (the compiler emits the error |
+*“Enum case ‘baz’ not found in type ‘Foo’”*). However, in our own code bases, |
+there are only a few places where enum aliases are not mere renamings of an |
+older value, but they also don’t appear to be the type of value that one would |
+expect to switch on (for example, a group of named constants representing |
+metrics rather than a set of options), so this restriction is not significant. |
+ |
+This strategy also implies that changing the name of an enum and adding the old |
+name as an alias below the new name will be a breaking change in the generated |
+Swift code. |
+ |
+## Oneof types |
+ |
+The `oneof` feature represents a “variant/union” data type that maps nicely to |
+Swift enums with associated values (algebraic types). These fields can also be |
+accessed independently though, and, specifically in the case of proto2, it’s |
+reasonable to expect access to default values when accessing a field that is not |
+explicitly set. |
+ |
+Taking all this into account, we can represent a `oneof` in Swift with two sets |
+of constructs: |
+ |
+* Properties in the message that correspond to the `oneof` fields. |
+* A nested enum named after the `oneof` and which provides the corresponding |
+ field values as case arguments. |
+ |
+This approach fulfills the needs of proto consumers by providing a |
+Swift-idiomatic way of simultaneously checking which field is set and accessing |
+its value, providing individual properties to access the default values |
+(important for proto2), and safely allows a field to be moved into a `oneof` |
+without breaking clients. |
+ |
+Consider the following proto: |
+ |
+```protobuf |
+message MyMessage { |
+ oneof record { |
+ string name = 1 [default = "unnamed"]; |
+ int32 id_number = 2 [default = 0]; |
+ } |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+In Swift, we would generate an enum, a property for that enum, and properties |
+for the fields themselves: |
+ |
+```swift |
+public struct MyMessage: ProtoMessage { |
+ public enum Record: NilLiteralConvertible { |
+ case name(String) |
+ case idNumber(Int32) |
+ case NOT_SET |
+ |
+ public init(nilLiteral: ()) { self = .NOT_SET } |
+ } |
+ |
+ // This is the "Swifty" way of accessing the value |
+ public var record: Record { ... } |
+ |
+ // Direct access to the underlying fields |
+ public var name: String! { ... } |
+ public var idNumber: Int32! { ... } |
+} |
+``` |
+ |
+This makes both usage patterns possible: |
+ |
+```swift |
+// Usage 1: Case-based dispatch |
+switch message.record { |
+ case .name(let name): |
+ // Do something with name if it was explicitly set |
+ case .idNumber(let id): |
+ // Do something with id_number if it was explicitly set |
+ case .NOT_SET: |
+ // Do something if it’s not set |
+} |
+ |
+// Usage 2: Direct access for default value fallback |
+// Sets the label text to the name if it was explicitly set, or to |
+// "unnamed" (the default value for the field) if id_number was set |
+// instead |
+let myLabel = UILabel() |
+myLabel.text = message.name |
+``` |
+ |
+As with proto enums, the generated `oneof` enum conforms to |
+`NilLiteralConvertible` to avoid switch statement issues. Setting the property |
+to nil will clear it (i.e., reset it to `NOT_SET`). |
+ |
+## Unknown Fields (proto2 only) |
+ |
+To be written. |
+ |
+## Extensions (proto2 only) |
+ |
+To be written. |
+ |
+## Reflection and Descriptors |
+ |
+We will not include reflection or descriptors in the first version of the Swift |
+library. The use cases for reflection on mobile are not as strong and the static |
+data to represent the descriptors would add bloat when we wish to keep the code |
+size small. |
+ |
+In the future, we will investigate whether they can be included as extensions |
+which might be able to be excluded from a build and/or automatically dead |
+stripped by the compiler if they are not used. |
+ |
+## Appendix A: Rejected strategies to handle packages |
+ |
+### Each package is its own Swift module |
+ |
+Each proto package could be declared as its own Swift module, replacing dots |
+with underscores (e.g., package `foo.bar` becomes module `Foo_Bar`). Then, users |
+would simply import modules containing whatever proto modules they want to use |
+and refer to the generated types by their short names. |
+ |
+**This solution is simply not possible, however.** Swift modules cannot |
+circularly reference each other, but there is no restriction against proto |
+packages doing so. Circular imports are forbidden (e.g., `foo.proto` importing |
+`bar.proto` importing `foo.proto`), but nothing prevents package `foo` from |
+using a type in package `bar` which uses a different type in package `foo`, as |
+long as there is no import cycle. If these packages were generated as Swift |
+modules, then `Foo` would contain an `import Bar` statement and `Bar` would |
+contain an `import Foo` statement, and there is no way to compile this. |
+ |
+### Ad hoc namespacing with structs |
+ |
+We can “fake” namespaces in Swift by declaring empty structs with private |
+initializers. Since modules are constructed based on compiler arguments, not by |
+syntactic constructs, and because there is no pure Swift way to define |
+submodules (even though Clang module maps support this), there is no |
+source-drive way to group generated code into namespaces aside from this |
+approach. |
+ |
+Types can be added to those intermediate package structs using Swift extensions. |
+For example, a message `Baz` in package `foo.bar` could be represented in Swift |
+as follows: |
+ |
+```swift |
+public struct Foo { |
+ private init() {} |
+} |
+ |
+public extension Foo { |
+ public struct Bar { |
+ private init() {} |
+ } |
+} |
+ |
+public extension Foo.Bar { |
+ public struct Baz { |
+ // Message fields and other methods |
+ } |
+} |
+ |
+let baz = Foo.Bar.Baz() |
+``` |
+ |
+Each of these constructs would actually be defined in a separate file; Swift |
+lets us keep them separate and add multiple structs to a single “namespace” |
+through extensions. |
+ |
+Unfortunately, these intermediate structs generate symbols of their own |
+(metatype information in the data segment). This becomes problematic if multiple |
+build targets contain Swift sources generated from different messages in the |
+same package. At link time, these symbols would collide, resulting in multiple |
+definition errors. |
+ |
+This approach also has the disadvantage that there is no automatic “short” way |
+to refer to the generated messages at the deepest nesting levels; since this use |
+of structs is a hack around the lack of namespaces, there is no equivalent to |
+import (Java) or using (C++) to simplify this. Users would have to declare type |
+aliases to make this cleaner, or we would have to generate them for users. |