You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is the final PR in the binding partitions series (modulo bugs and tweaks),
i.e. it closes#54654 and thus closes#40399, which was the original design
sketch.
This thus activates the full designed semantics for binding partitions,
in particular allowing safe replacement of const bindings. It in particular
allows struct redefinitions. This thus closestimholy/Revise.jl#18 and
also closes#38584.
The biggest semantic change here is probably that this gets rid of the
notion of "resolvedness" of a binding. Previously, a lot of the behavior
of our implementation depended on when bindings were "resolved", which
could happen at basically an arbitrary point (in the compiler, in REPL
completion, in a different thread), making a lot of the semantics around
bindings ill- or at least implementation-defined. There are several related
issues in the bugtracker, so this closes#14055#44604#46354#30277
It is also the last step to close#24569.
It also supports bindings for undef->defined transitions and thus
closes#53958#54733 - however, this is not activated yet for performance
reasons and may need some further optimization.
Since resolvedness no longer exists, we need to replace it with some
hopefully more well-defined semantics. I will describe the semantics
below, but before I do I will make two notes:
1. There are a number of cases where these semantics will behave
slightly differently than the old semantics absent some other
task going around resolving random bindings.
2. The new behavior (except for the replacement stuff) was generally
permissible under the old semantics if the bindings
happened to be resolved at the right time.
With all that said, there are essentially three "strengths" of bindings:
1. Implicit Bindings: Anything implicitly obtained from `using Mod`, "no binding",
plus slightly more exotic corner cases around conflicts
2. Weakly declared bindings: Declared using `global sym` and nothing else
3. Strongly declared bindings: Declared using `global sym::T`, `const sym=val`,
`import Mod: sym`, `using Mod: sym` or as an implicit strong global declaration
in `sym=val`, where `sym` is known to be global (either by being at toplevle
or as `global sym=val` inside a function).
In general, you always allowed to syntactically replace a weaker binding
by a stronger one (although the runtime permits arbitrary binding deletion
now, this is just a syntactic constraint to catch errors).
Second, any implicit binding can be replaced by other implicit
bindings as the result of changing the `using`'ed module.
And lastly, any constants may be replaced by any other constants
(irrespective of type).
We do not currently allow replacing globals, but may consider changing that
in 1.13.
This is mostly how things used to work, as well in the absence of any stray
external binding resolutions. The most prominent difference is probably this one:
```
set_foo!() = global foo = 1
```
In the above terminology, this now always declares a "strongly declared binding",
whereas before it declared a "weakly declared binding" that would become
strongly declared on first write to the global (unless of course somebody
had created a different strongly declared global in the meantime). To see
the difference, this is now disallowed:
```
julia> set_foo!() = global foo = 1
set_foo! (generic function with 1 method)
julia> const foo = 1
ERROR: cannot declare Main.foo constant; it was already declared global
Stacktrace:
[1] top-level scope
@ REPL[2]:1
```
Before it would depend on the order of binding resolution (although it
just crashes on current master for some reason - whoops, probably my
fault).
Another major change is the ambiguousness of imports. In:
```
module M1; export x; x=1; end
module M2; export x; x=2; end
using .M1, .M2
```
the binding `Main.x` is now always ambiguous and will throw on access.
Before which binding you get, would depend on resolution order. To choose
one, use an explicit import (which was the behavior you would previously
get if neither binding was resolved before both imports).
0 commit comments