:orphan:

.. ===-- ArrayBridge.rst - Proposal for Bridging Swift Array and NSArray --===..
..
.. This source file is part of the Swift.org open source project
..
.. Copyright (c) 2014 - 2015 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors
.. Licensed under Apache License v2.0 with Runtime Library Exception
..
.. See http://swift.org/LICENSE.txt for license information
.. See http://swift.org/CONTRIBUTORS.txt for the list of Swift project authors
..
.. ===---------------------------------------------------------------------===..

=====================================
 Bridging Swift Arrays to/from Cocoa
=====================================   

:Authors: Chris Lattner, Joe Groff, Dave Abrahams
          
:Summary: Unifying a fast C-style array with a Cocoa class cluster
          that can represent arbitrarily complex data structures is
          challenging.  In a space where no approach satisfies all
          desires, we believe we've found a good compromise.

Basic Requirements
==================

A successfully-bridged array type would be both "great for Cocoa" and
"great for C."

Being "great for Cocoa" means this must work and be efficient::

  var a = [cocoaObject1, cocoaObject2]
  someCocoaObject.takesAnNSArray(a)

  func processViews(views: AnyObject[]) { ... }
  var b = someNSWindow.views // views is an NSArray
  processViews(b)

  var c: AnyObject[] = someNSWindow.views

Being "great For C" means that an array created in Swift must have
C-like performance and be representable as a base pointer and
length, for interaction with C APIs, at zero cost.

Proposed Solution
=================

``Array<T>``, a.k.a. ``T[]``, is notionally an ``enum`` with two
cases; call them ``Native`` and ``Cocoa``.  The ``Native`` case stores
a ``ContiguousArray``, which has a known, contiguous buffer
representation and O(1) access to the address of any element.  The
``Cocoa`` case stores an ``NSArray``.

``NSArray`` bridges bidirectionally in O(1) [#copy]_ to
``AnyObject[]``.  It also implicitly converts in to ``T[]``, where T
is any class declared to be ``@objc``.  No dynamic check of element
types is ever performed for arrays of ``@objc`` elements; instead we
simply let ``objc_msgSend`` fail when ``T``\ 's API turns out to be
unsupported by the object.  Any ``T[]``, where T is an ``@objc``
class, converts implicitly to NSArray.

Optimization
============

Any type with more than one representation naturally penalizes
fine-grained operations such as indexing, because the cost of
repeatedly branching to handle each representation becomes
significant.  For example, the design above would pose significant performance
problems for arrays of integers, because every subscript operation would have to
check to see if the representation is an NSArray, realize it is not, then do the
constant time index into the native representation.  Beyond requiring an extra
check, this check would disable optimizations that can provide a signficant
performance win (like auto-vectorization).

However, the inherent limitations of ``NSArray`` mean that we can
often know at compile-time which representation is in play.  So the
plan is to teach the compiler to optimize for the ``Native`` case
unless the element type is an ``@objc`` class or AnyObject.  When ``T`` is
statically known not to be an ``@objc`` class or AnyObject, it will be
possible to eliminate the ``Cocoa`` case entirely.  When generating code for
generic algorithms, we can favor the ``Native`` case, perhaps going so
far as to specialize for the case where all parameters are non-\ ``@objc``
classes.  This will give us C-like performance for array operations on ``Int``,
``Float``, and other ``struct`` types [#boundscheck]_.

To implement this, we'll need to implement a new generic builtin,
something along the lines of "``Builtin.couldBeObjCType<T>()``", which
returns a ``Builtin.Int1`` value.  SILCombine and IRGen should eagerly
fold this to "0" iff ``T`` is known to be a protocol other than
AnyObject, if it is known to be a non-\ ``@objc`` class, or if it is
known to be any struct, enum or tuple.  Otherwise, the builtin is left
alone, and if it reaches IRGen, IRGen should conservatively fold it to
"1".  In the common case where ``Array<T>`` is inlined and
specialized, this will allow us to eliminate all of the overhead in
the important C cases.


Opportunity Feature
===================

For hardcore systems programming, we can expose ``ContiguousArray`` as
a user-consumable type.  That will allow programmers who don't care
about Cocoa interoperability to avoid ever paying the cost of
branching on representation.  This type would not bridge transparently to Array,
but could be useful if you need an array of Objective-C type, don't care about
NSArray compatibility, and care deeply about performance.

Other Approaches Considered
===========================

We considered an approach where conversions between ``NSArray`` and
native Swift ``Array`` were entirely manual and quickly ruled it out
as failing to satisfy the requirements.

We considered another promising proposal that would make ``T[]`` a
(hand-rolled) existential wrapper type.  Among other things, we felt
this approach would expose multiple array types too prominently and
would tend to "bless" an inappropriately-specific protocol as the
generic collection interface (for example, a generic collection should
not be indexable with ``Int``).

We also considered several variants of the approach we've proposed
here, tuning the criteria by which we'd decide to optimize for a
``Native`` representation.

---------

.. [#copy] Value semantics dictates that when bridging an ``NSArray``
   into Swift, we invoke its ``copy`` method.  Calling ``copy`` on an
   immutable ``NSArray`` can be almost cost-free, but a mutable
   ``NSArray`` *will* be physically copied.  We accept that copy as
   the cost of doing business.

.. [#boundscheck] Of course, by default, array bounds checking is enabled.
   C does not include array bounds checks, so to get true C performance in all
   cases, these will have to be disabled.
