mirror of
https://github.com/AleoHQ/leo.git
synced 2024-12-25 02:22:44 +03:00
542638baf9
This has been written to be more broad than type aliases, which were the initial inspiration for this.
83 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
83 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# Leo RFC 008: Built-in Declarations
|
|
|
|
## Authors
|
|
|
|
- Max Bruce
|
|
- Collin Chin
|
|
- Alessandro Coglio
|
|
- Eric McCarthy
|
|
- Jon Pavlik
|
|
- Damir Shamanaev
|
|
- Damon Sicore
|
|
- Howard Wu
|
|
|
|
## Status
|
|
|
|
DRAFT
|
|
|
|
# Summary
|
|
|
|
This RFC proposes a framework for making certain (top-level) declarations (e.g. type aliases)
|
|
available in every Leo program without the need to explicitly write those declarations.
|
|
These may be hardwired into the language, or provided by standard libraries/packages;
|
|
in the latter case, the libraries may be either implicitly imported or required to be explicitly imported.
|
|
|
|
# Motivation
|
|
|
|
It is common for programming languages to provide predefined types, functions, etc.
|
|
that can be readily used in programs.
|
|
The initial motivation for this in Leo was to have a type alias `string` for character arrays of unspecified sizes
|
|
(array types of unspecified sizes and type aliases are discussed in separate RFCs),
|
|
but the feature is clearly more general.
|
|
|
|
# Design
|
|
|
|
Leo supports four kinds of top-level declarations:
|
|
- Import declarations.
|
|
- Function declarations.
|
|
- Circuit type declarations.
|
|
- Global constant declarations.
|
|
- Type alias declarations. (Proposed in a separate RFC.)
|
|
|
|
Leaving import declarations aside for the moment since they are "meta" in some sense
|
|
(as they bring in names of entities declared elsewhere),
|
|
it may make sense for any of the four kinds of declarations above to have built-in instances,
|
|
i.e. we could have some built-in functions, circuit types, global constants, and type aliases.
|
|
This is why this RFC talks of built-in declarations, more broadly than just built-in type aliases that inspired it.
|
|
|
|
The built-in status of the envisioned declarations could be achieved in slightly different ways:
|
|
1. Their names could be simply available in any program,
|
|
without any explicit declaration found anywhere for them.
|
|
2. They could be declared in some core library files explicitly,
|
|
and be available in any program without needing to be explicitly import them,
|
|
like `java.lang.String` in Java or `std::Option` in Rust.
|
|
3. They could be declared in some core library files explicitly,
|
|
and be available only in programs that explicitly import them.
|
|
|
|
From a user's perspective, there is not a lot of difference between cases 1 and 2 above:
|
|
in both cases, the names are available; the only difference is that in case 2 the user can see the declaration somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Also note that case 2 could be seen as having an implicit (i.e. built-in) import of the library/libraries in question.
|
|
Again, imports are "meta" in this context, and what counts are really the other kinds of declarations.
|
|
|
|
In cases 2 and 3, a related but somewhat independent issue is whether those declarations have Leo definitions or not.
|
|
The Leo library already includes functions like the one for BLAKE2s that are not defined in Leo,
|
|
but rather "natively" in Rust/R1CS.
|
|
|
|
# Drawbacks
|
|
|
|
This does not seem to bring any drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
# Effect on Ecosystem
|
|
|
|
This may interact with libraries and packages in some way,
|
|
if we go with case 2 or 3 above.
|
|
But it should be not much different from regular libraries/packages.
|
|
|
|
# Alternatives
|
|
|
|
The 'Design' section above currently discusses a few alternatives,
|
|
rather than prescribing a defined approach.
|
|
When consensus is reached on one of the alternatives discussed there,
|
|
the others will be moved to this section.
|