- Proposal: SE-0030
- Author(s): Joe Groff
- Status: Under revision (Result of February 10...February 23, 2016 review)
- Review manager: Doug Gregor
There are property implementation patterns that come up repeatedly. Rather than hardcode a fixed set of patterns into the compiler, we should provide a general "property behavior" mechanism to allow these patterns to be defined as libraries.
We've tried to accommodate several important patterns for properties with
targeted language support, but this support has been narrow in scope and
utility. For instance, Swift 1 and 2 provide lazy
properties as a primitive
language feature, since lazy initialization is common and is often necessary to
avoid having properties be exposed as Optional
. Without this language
support, it takes a lot of boilerplate to get the same effect:
class Foo {
// lazy var foo = 1738
private var _foo: Int?
var foo: Int {
get {
if let value = _foo { return value }
let initialValue = 1738
_foo = initialValue
return initialValue
}
set {
_foo = newValue
}
}
}
Building lazy
into the language has several disadvantages. It makes the
language and compiler more complex and less orthogonal. It's also inflexible;
there are many variations on lazy initialization that make sense, but we
wouldn't want to hardcode language support for all of them. For instance, some
applications may want the lazy initialization to be synchronized, but lazy
only provides single-threaded initialization. The standard implementation of
lazy
is also problematic for value types. A lazy
getter must be mutating
,
which means it can't be accessed from an immutable value. Inline storage is
also suboptimal for many memoization tasks, since the cache cannot be reused
across copies of the value. A value-oriented memoized property implementation
might look very different, using a class instance to store the cached value
out-of-line in order to avoid mutation of the value itself.
There are important property patterns outside of lazy initialization. It often makes sense to have "delayed", once-assignable-then-immutable properties to support multi-phase initialization:
class Foo {
let immediatelyInitialized = "foo"
var _initializedLater: String?
// We want initializedLater to present like a non-optional 'let' to user code;
// it can only be assigned once, and can't be accessed before being assigned.
var initializedLater: String {
get { return _initializedLater! }
set {
assert(_initializedLater == nil)
_initializedLater = newValue
}
}
}
Implicitly-unwrapped optionals allow this in a pinch, but give up a lot of safety compared to a non-optional 'let'. Using IUO for multi-phase initialization gives up both immutability and nil-safety.
We also have other application-specific property features like
didSet
/willSet
that add language complexity for
limited functionality. Beyond what we've baked into the language already,
there's a seemingly endless set of common property behaviors, including
synchronized access, copying, and various kinds of proxying, all begging for
language attention to eliminate their boilerplate.
I suggest we allow for property behaviors to be implemented within the
language. A var
declaration can specify its behaviors in square
brackets after the keyword:
var [lazy] foo = 1738
which implements the property foo
in a way described by the property
behavior declaration for lazy
:
var behavior lazy<Value>: Value {
var value: Value? = nil
initialValue
mutating get {
if let value = value {
return value
}
let initial = initialValue
value = initial
return initial
}
set {
value = newValue
}
}
Property behaviors can control the storage,
initialization, and access of affected properties, obviating the need for
special language support for lazy
, observers, and other
special-case property features.
Before describing the detailed design, I'll run through some examples of potential applications for behaviors.
The current lazy
property feature can be reimplemented as a property behavior.
// Property behaviors are declared using the `var behavior` keyword cluster.
public var behavior lazy<Value>: Value {
// Behaviors can declare storage that backs the property.
private var value: Value?
// Behaviors can bind the property's initializer expression with an
// `initialValue` property declaration.
initialValue
// Behaviors can declare initialization logic for the storage.
// (Stored properties can also be initialized in-line.)
init() {
value = nil
}
// Inline initializers are also supported, so `var value: Value? = nil`
// would work equivalently.
// Behaviors can declare accessors that implement the property.
mutating get {
if let value = value {
return value
}
let initial = initialValue
value = initial
return initial
}
set {
value = newValue
}
}
Properties declared with the lazy
behavior are backed by the Optional
-typed
storage and accessors from the behavior:
var [lazy] x = 1738 // Allocates an Int? behind the scenes, inited to nil
print(x) // Invokes the `lazy` getter, initializing the property
x = 679 // Invokes the `lazy` setter
A property behavior can model "delayed" initialization behavior, where the DI
rules for properties are enforced dynamically rather than at compile time.
This can avoid the need for implicitly-unwrapped optionals in multi-phase
initialization. We can implement both a mutable variant, which
allows for reassignment like a var
:
public var behavior delayedMutable<Value>: Value {
private var value: Value? = nil
get {
guard let value = value else {
fatalError("property accessed before being initialized")
}
return value
}
set {
value = newValue
}
}
and an immutable variant, which only allows a single initialization like
a let
:
public var behavior delayedImmutable<Value>: Value {
private var value: Value? = nil
get {
guard let value = value else {
fatalError("property accessed before being initialized")
}
return value
}
// Perform an initialization, trapping if the
// value is already initialized.
set {
if let _ = value {
fatalError("property initialized twice")
}
value = initialValue
}
}
This enables multi-phase initialization, like this:
class Foo {
var [delayedImmutable] x: Int
init() {
// We don't know "x" yet, and we don't have to set it
}
func initializeX(x: Int) {
self.x = x // Will crash if 'self.x' is already initialized
}
func getX() -> Int {
return x // Will crash if 'self.x' wasn't initialized
}
}
A property behavior can also approximate the built-in behavior of
didSet
/willSet
observers, by declaring support for custom accessors:
public var behavior observed<Value>: Value {
initialValue
var value = initialValue
// A behavior can declare accessor requirements, the implementations of
// which must be provided by property declarations using the behavior.
// The behavior may provide a default implementation of the accessors, in
// order to make them optional.
// The willSet accessor, invoked before the property is updated. The
// default does nothing.
mutating accessor willSet(newValue: Value) { }
// The didSet accessor, invoked before the property is updated. The
// default does nothing.
mutating accessor didSet(oldValue: Value) { }
get {
return value
}
set {
willSet(newValue)
let oldValue = value
value = newValue
didSet(oldValue)
}
}
A common complaint with didSet
/willSet
is that the observers fire on
every write, not only ones that cause a real change. A behavior
that supports a didChange
accessor, which only gets invoked if the property
value really changed to a value not equal to the old value, can be implemented
as a new behavior:
public var behavior changeObserved<Value: Equatable>: Value {
initialValue
var value = initialValue
mutating accessor didChange(oldValue: Value) { }
get {
return value
}
set {
let oldValue = value
value = newValue
if oldValue != newValue {
didChange(oldValue)
}
}
}
For example:
var [changeObserved] x: Int = 1 {
didChange { print("\(oldValue) => \(x)") }
}
x = 1 // Prints nothing
x = 2 // Prints 1 => 2
(Note that, like didSet
/willSet
today, neither behavior implementation
will observe changes through class references that mutate a referenced
class instance without changing the reference itself. Also, as currently
proposed, behaviors would force the property to be initialized in-line, which
is not acceptable for instance properties. That's a limitation that can
be lifted by future extensions.)
Objective-C supports atomic
properties, which take a lock on get
and set
to synchronize accesses to a property. This is occasionally useful, and it can
be brought to Swift as a behavior. The real implementation of atomic
properties in ObjC uses a global bank of locks, but for illustrative purposes
(and to demonstrate referring to self
) I'll use a per-object lock instead:
// A class that owns a mutex that can be used to synchronize access to its
// properties.
public protocol Synchronizable: class {
func withLock<R>(@noescape body: () -> R) -> R
}
// Behaviors can refer to a property's containing type using
// the implicit `Self` generic parameter. Constraints can be
// applied using a 'where' clause, like in an extension.
public var behavior synchronized<Value where Self: Synchronizable>: Value {
initialValue
var value: Value = initialValue
get {
return self.withLock {
return value
}
}
set {
self.withLock {
value = newValue
}
}
}
Many Cocoa classes implement value-like objects that require explicit copying.
Swift currently provides an @NSCopying
attribute for properties to give
them behavior like Objective-C's @property(copy)
, invoking the copy
method
on new objects when the property is set. We can turn this into a behavior:
public var behavior copying<Value: NSCopying>: Value {
initialValue
// Copy the value on initialization.
var value: Value = initialValue.copy()
get {
return value
}
set {
// Copy the value on reassignment.
value = newValue.copy()
}
}
This is a small sampling of the possibilities of behaviors. Let's look at the proposed design in detail:
A property behavior declaration is introduced by the var behavior
contextual keyword cluster. The declaration is designed to resemble the
syntax of a property using the behavior:
property-behavior-decl ::=
attribute* decl-modifier*
'var' 'behavior' identifier // behavior name
generic-signature?
':' type
'{'
property-behavior-member-decl*
'}'
Inside the behavior declaration, standard initializer, property, method, and
nested type declarations are allowed, as are core accessor declarations
—get
and set
. Accessor requirement declarations and initial
value requirement declarations are also recognized
contextually within the declaration:
property-behavior-member-decl ::= decl
property-behavior-member-decl ::= accessor-decl // get, set
property-behavior-member-decl ::= accessor-requirement-decl
property-behavior-member-decl ::= initial-value-requirement-decl
Inside a behavior declaration, self
is implicitly bound to the value that
contains the property instantiated using this behavior. For a freestanding
property at global or local scope, this will be the empty tuple ()
, and
for a static or class property, this will be the metatype. Within
the behavior declaration, the type of self
is abstract and represented by the
implicit generic type parameter Self
. Constraints can be placed on Self
in the generic signature of the behavior, to make protocol members available
on self
:
protocol Fungible {
typealias Fungus
func funge() -> Fungus
}
var behavior runcible<Value where Self: Fungible, Self.Fungus == Value>: Value {
get {
return self.funge()
}
}
Lookup within self
is not implicit within behaviors and must always be
explicit, since unqualified lookup refers to the behavior's own members. self
is immutable except in mutating
methods, where it is considered an inout
parameter unless the Self
type has a class constraint. self
cannot be
accessed within inline initializers of the behavior's storage or in init
declarations, since these may run during the container's own initialization
phase.
Definitions within behaviors can refer to other members of the behavior by
unqualified lookup, or if disambiguation is necessary, by qualified lookup
on the behavior's name (since self
is already taken to mean the containing
value):
var behavior foo<Value>: Value {
var x: Int
init() {
x = 1738
}
mutating func update(x: Int) {
foo.x = x // Disambiguate reference to behavior storage
}
}
If the behavior includes accessor requirement declarations, then the declared accessor names are bound as functions with labeled arguments:
var behavior fakeComputed<Value>: Value {
accessor get() -> Value
mutating accessor set(newValue: Value)
get {
return get()
}
set {
set(newValue: newValue)
}
}
Note that the behavior's own core accessor implementations get { ... }
and set { ... }
are not referenceable this way.
If the behavior includes an initial value requirement declaration, then
the identifier initialValue
is bound as a get-only computed property that
evaluates the initial value expression for the property
Behaviors may include property and method declarations. Any storage produced by behavior properties is expanded into the containing scope of a property using the behavior.
var behavior runcible<Value>: Value {
var x: Int = 0
let y: String = ""
...
}
var [runcible] a: Int
// expands to:
var `a.[runcible].x`: Int
let `a.[runcible].y`: String
var a: Int { ... }
For public behaviors, this is inherently fragile, so adding or removing storage is a breaking change. Resilience can be achieved by using a resilient type as storage. The instantiated properties must also be of types that are visible to potential users of the behavior, meaning that public behaviors must use storage with types that are either public or internal-with-availability, similar to the restrictions on inlineable functions.
Method and computed property implementations have only immutable access to
self
and their storage by default, unless they are mutating
. (As with
computed properties, setters are mutating
by default unless explicitly
marked nonmutating
).
The storage of a behavior must be initialized, either by inline initialization,
or by an init
declaration within the initializer:
var behavior inlineInitialized<Value>: Value {
var x: Int = 0 // initialized inline
...
}
var behavior initInitialized<Value>: Value {
var x: Int
init() {
x = 0
}
}
Behaviors can contain at most one init
declaration, which must take no
parameters. This init
declaration cannot take a visibility modifier; it
is always as visible as the behavior itself. Neither inline initializers nor
init
declaration bodies may reference self
, since they will be executed
during the initialization of a property's containing value.
An initial value requirement declaration specifies that a behavior requires any property declared using the behavior to be declared with an initial value expression.
initial-value-requirement-decl ::= 'initialValue'
The initial value expression from the property declaration is coerced to
the property's type and bound to the initialValue
identifier in the scope
of the behavior. Loading from initialValue
behaves like a get-only computed
property, evaluating the expression every time it is loaded:
var behavior evalTwice<Value>: Value {
initialValue
get {
// Evaluate the initial value twice, for whatever reason.
_ = initialValue
return initialValue
}
}
var [evalTwice] test: () = print("test")
// Prints "test" twice
_ = evalTwice
A property declared with a behavior must have an initial value expression if and only if the behavior has an initial value requirement.
An accessor requirement declaration specifies that a behavior requires
any property declared using the behavior to provide an accessor
implementation. An accessor requirement declaration is introduced by the
contextual accessor
keyword:
accessor-requirement-decl ::=
attribute* decl-modifier*
'accessor' identifier function-signature function-body?
An accessor requirement declaration looks like, and serves a similar role to, a function requirement declaration in a protocol. A property using the behavior must supply an implementation for each of its accessor requirements that don't have a default implementation. The accessor names (with labeled arguments) are bound as functions within the behavior declaration:
// Reinvent computed properties
var behavior foobar<Value>: Value {
accessor foo() -> Value
mutating accessor bar(bas: Value)
get { return foo() }
set { bar(bas: newValue) }
}
var [foobar] foo: Int {
foo {
return 0
}
bar {
// Parameter gets the name 'bas' from the accessor requirement
// by default, as with built-in accessors today.
print(bas)
}
}
var [foobar] bar: Int {
foo {
return 0
}
bar(myNewValue) {
// Parameter name can be overridden as well
print(myNewValue)
}
}
Accessor requirements can be made optional by specifying a default implementation:
// Reinvent property observers
var behavior observed<Value>: Value {
// Requirements
initialValue
mutating accessor willSet(newValue: Value) {
// do nothing by default
}
mutating accessor didSet(oldValue: Value) {
// do nothing by default
}
// Implementation
init() {
value = initialValue
}
get {
return value
}
set {
willSet(newValue: newValue)
let oldValue = value
value = newValue
didSet(oldValue: oldValue)
}
}
Accessor requirements cannot take visibility modifiers; they are always as visible as the behavior itself.
Like methods, accessors are not allowed to mutate the storage of the behavior
or self
unless declared mutating
. Mutating accessors can only be invoked
by the behavior from other mutating
contexts.
The behavior implements the property by defining its core accessors,
get
and optionally set
. If a behavior only provides a getter, it
produces read-only properties; if it provides both a getter and setter, it
produces mutable properties (though properties that instantiate the behavior
may still control the visibility of their setters). It is an error if
a behavior declaration does not provide at least a getter.
Property declarations gain the ability to instantiate behavior, with arbitrary accessors:
property-decl ::= attribute* decl-modifier* core-property-decl
core-property-decl ::=
('var' | 'let') behavior? pattern-binding
((',' pattern-binding)+ | accessors)?
behavior ::= '[' visibility? decl-ref ']'
pattern-binding ::= var-pattern (':' type)? inline-initializer?
inline-initializer ::= '=' expr
accessors ::= '{' accessor+ '}' | brace-stmt // see notes about disambiguation
accessor ::= decl-modifier* decl-ref accessor-args? brace-stmt
accessor-args ::= '(' identifier (',' identifier)* ')'
For example:
public var [behavior] prop: Int {
accessor1 { body() }
behavior.accessor2(arg) { body() }
}
If multiple properties are declared in the same declaration, the behavior
apply to every declared property. let
properties cannot yet use behaviors.
If the behavior requires
accessors, the implementations for those accessors are taken from the
property's accessor declarations, matching by name. To support future
composition of behaviors, the accessor definitions can use
qualified names behavior.accessor
. If an accessor requirement takes
parameters, but the definition in for the property does not explicitly name
parameters, the parameter labels from the behavior's accessor requirement
declaration are implicitly bound by default.
var behavior foo<Value>: Value {
accessor bar(arg: Int)
...
}
var [foo] x: Int {
bar { print(arg) } // `arg` implicitly bound
}
var [foo] x: Int {
bar(myArg) { print(myArg) } // `arg` explicitly bound to `myArg`
}
If any accessor definition in the property does not match up to a behavior requirement, it is an error.
The shorthand for get-only computed properties is only allowed for computed properties that use no behaviors. Any property that uses behaviors with accessors must name all those accessors explicitly.
If a property with behaviors declares an inline initializer, the initializer expression is captured as the implementation of a computed, get-only property which is bound to the behavior's initializer requirement. If the behavior does not have a behavior requirement, then it is an error to use an inline initializer expression. Conversely, it is an error not to provide an initializer expression to a behavior that requires one.
Properties cannot be declared using behaviors inside protocols.
Under this proposal, even if a property with a behavior has an initial value expression, the type is always required to be explicitly declared. Behaviors also do not allow for out-of-line initialization of properties. Both of these restrictions can be lifted by future extensions; see the Future directions section below.
By itself, this is an additive feature that doesn't impact
existing code. However, with some of the future directions suggested, it
can potentially obsolete lazy
, willSet
/didSet
, and @NSCopying
as
hardcoded language features. We could grandfather these in, but my preference
would be to phase them out by migrating them to library-based property behavior
implementations. (Removing them should be its own separate proposal, though.)
A previous iteration of this proposal used an informal instantiation protocol for property behaviors, desugaring a behavior into function calls, so that:
var [lazy] foo = 1738
would act as sugar for something like this:
var `foo.[lazy]` = lazy(var: Int.self, initializer: { 1738 })
var foo: Int {
get {
return `foo.[lazy]`[varIn: self,
initializer: { 1738 }]
}
set {
`foo.[lazy]`[varIn: self,
initializer: { 1738 }] = newValue
}
}
There are a few disadvantages to this approach:
- Behaviors would pollute the namespace, potentially with multiple global functions and/or types.
- In practice, it would require every behavior to be implemented using a new (usually generic) type, which introduces runtime overhead for the type's metadata structures.
- The property behavior logic ends up less clear, being encoded in unspecialized language constructs.
- Determining the capabilities of a behavior relied on function overload resolution, which can be fiddly, and would require a lot of special case diagnostic work to get good, property-oriented error messages out of.
- Without severely complicating the informal protocol, it would be difficult to
support eager vs. deferred initializers, or allow mutating access to
self
concurrently with the property's own storage without violatinginout
aliasing rules. The code generation for standalone behavior decls can hide this complexity.
Making property behaviors a distinct declaration undeniably increases the
language size, but the demand for something like behaviors is clearly there.
In return for a new declaration, we get better namespacing, more
efficient code generation, clearer, more descriptive code for their
implementation, and more expressive power with better diagnostics. I argue that
the complexity can pay for itself, today by eliminating several special-case
language features, and potentially in the future by generalizing to other kinds
of behaviors (or being subsumed by an all-encompassing macro system). For
instance, a future func behavior
could conceivably provide Python
decorator-like behavior for transforming function bodies.
John McCall proposed a "template"-like syntax for property behaviors, used in a previous revision of this proposal:
behavior var [lazy] name: Value = initialValue {
...
}
It's appealing from a declaration-follows-use standpoint, and provides convenient places to slot in name, type, and initial value bindings. However, this kind of syntax is unprecedented in Swift, and in initial review, was not popular.
Alternatives to the proposed var [behavior] propertyName
syntax include:
- A different set of brackets,
var (behavior) propertyName
orvar {behavior} propertyName
. Parens have the problem of being ambiguous with a tuplevar
declaration, requiring lookahead to resolve. Square brackets also work better with other declarations behaviors could be extended to apply to in the future, such as subscripts or functions - An attribute, such as
@behavior(lazy)
orbehavior(lazy) var
. This is the most conservative answer, but is clunky. - Use the behavior function name directly as an attribute, so that e.g.
@lazy
works. - Use a new keyword, as in
var x: T by behavior
. - Something on the right side of the colon, such as
var x: lazy(T)
. To me this reads likelazy(T)
is a type of some kind, which it really isn't.
The functionality proposed here is quite broad, so to attempt to minimize the review burden of the initial proposal, I've factored out several aspects for separate consideration:
Since we don't have an effects system (yet?), let
behavior implementations
have the potential to invalidate the immutability assumptions expected of let
properties, and it would be the programmer's responsibility to maintain them.
We don't support computed let
s for the same reason, so I suggest leaving
let
s out of property behaviors for now. let behavior
s could be added in
the future when we have a comprehensive design for immutable computed
properties and/or functions.
There are subtle issues with inferring the type of a property using a behavior when the behavior introduces constraints on the property type. If you have something like this:
var behavior uint16only: UInt16 { ... }
var [uint16only] x = 1738
there are two, and possibly more, ways to define what happens:
- We type-check the initializer expression in isolation before resolving
behaviors. In this case,
1738
would type-check by defaulting toInt
, and then we'd raise an error instantiating theuint16only
behavior, which requires a property to have typeUInt16
. - We apply the behaviors before type-checking the initializer expression,
introducing generic constraints on the contextual type of the initializer.
In this case, applying the
uint16only
behavior would constrain the contextual type of the initializer toUInt16
, and we'd successfully type-check the literal as aUInt16
.
There are merits and downsides to both approaches. To allow these issues to be given proper consideration, I'm subsetting them out by proposing to first require that properties with behaviors always declare an explicit type.
It is useful to be able to compose behaviors, for instance, to have a
lazy property with observers that's also synchronized. Relatedly, it is
useful for subclasses to be able to override
their inherited properties
by applying behaviors over the base class implementation, as can be done
with didSet
and willSet
today. Linear composition can be supported by
allowing behaviors to stack, each referring to the underlying property
beneath it by super
or some other magic binding. However, this form
of composition can be treacherous, since it allows for "incorrect"
compositions of behaviors. One of lazy • synchronized
or
synchronized • lazy
is going to do the wrong thing. This possibility
can be handled somewhat by allowing certain compositions to be open-coded;
John McCall has suggested that every composition ought to be directly
implemented as an entirely distinct behavior.
That of course
has an obvious exponential explosion problem; it's infeasible to anticipate
and hand-code every useful combination of behaviors. These issues deserve
careful separate consideration, so I'm leaving behavior composition out of this
initial proposal.
This proposal does not suggest changing the allowed operations inside
initialization expressions; in particular, an initialization of an
instance property may not refer to self
or other instance properties or
methods, due to the potential for the expression to execute before the
value is fully initialized:
struct Foo {
var a = 1
var b = a // Not allowed
var c = foo() // Not allowed
func foo() { }
}
This is inconvenient for behaviors like lazy
that only ever evaluate the
initial value expression after the true initialization phase has completed,
and where it's desirable to reference self
to lazily initialize.
Behaviors could be extended to annotate the initializer as "deferred",
which would allow the initializer expression to refer to self
, while
preventing the initializer expression from being evaluated at initialization
time. (If we consider behaviors to be essentially always fragile, this could
be inferred from the behavior implementation.)
This proposal also does not allow for behaviors that support out-of-line initialization, as in:
func foo() {
// Out-of-line local variable initialization
var [behavior] x: Int
x = 1
}
struct Foo {
var [behavior] y: Int
init() {
// Out-of-line instance property initialization
y = 1
}
}
This is a fairly serious limitation for instance properties. There are a few
potential approaches we can take. One is to allow a behavior's init
logic to take an out-of-line initialization as a parameter, either
directly or by having a different constraint on the initializer requirement
that only allows it to be referred to from init
(the opposite of "deferred"). It can also be supported indirectly by
linear behavior composition, if the default root super
behavior for a stack
of properties defaults to a plain old stored property, which can then follow
normal initialization rules. This is similar to how didSet
/willSet
behave today. However, this would not allow behaviors to change the
initialization behavior in any way.
There are a number of clever things you can do with the name of a property
if it can be referenced as a string, such as using it to look up a value in
a map, to log, or to serialize. We could conceivably support a name
requirement declaration:
var behavior echo<Value: StringLiteralConvertible>: Value {
name: String
get { return name }
}
var [echo] echo: String
print(echo) // => echo
It may be useful for behaviors to be overloadable, for instance to give a different implementation to computed and stored variants of a concept:
// A behavior for stored properties...
var behavior foo<Value>: Value {
initialValue
var value: Value = initialValue
get { ... }
set { ... }
}
// Same behavior for computed properties...
var behavior foo<Value>: Value {
initialValue
accessor get() -> Value
accessor set(newValue: Value)
get { ... }
set { ... }
}
We could resolve overloads by accessors, type constraints on Value
, and/or
initializer requirements. However, determining what this overload signature
should be, and also the exciting interactions with type inference from
initializer expressions, should be a separate discussion.
It is useful to add out-of-band operations to a property that aren't normal
members of its formal type, for instance, to clear
a lazy property to be
recomputed later, or to reset a property to an implementation-defined default
value. This is useful, but it complicates the design of the feature. Aside from
the obvious surface-level concerns of syntax for accessing these members, this
also exposes behaviors as interface rather than purely an implementation
detail, meaning their interaction with resilience, protocols, class
inheritance, and other abstractions needs to be designed. It's also a fair
question whether out-of- band members should be tied to behaviors at all--it
could be useful to design out-of-band members as an independent feature
independent with behaviors.