SwiftSemantics is a package that lets you
parse Swift code into its constituent declarations.
Use SwiftSyntax to construct
an abstract syntax tree from Swift source code,
then walk the AST with the provided DeclarationCollector
(or with your own SyntaxVisitor-conforming type)
and construct a Declaration value for each visited DeclSyntax node:
If your project has a direct dependency SwiftSyntax,
use the declaration below that corresponds to your Swift language version:
// Swift 5.2
.package(url: "https://github.com/apple/swift-syntax.git",
.exact("0.50200.0")),
// Swift 5.3
.package(name: "SwiftSyntax",
url: "https://github.com/apple/swift-syntax.git",
.exact("0.50300.0")),
// Swift 5.4
.package(name: "SwiftSyntax",
url: "https://github.com/apple/swift-syntax.git",
.revision("release/5.4")),
// Swift 5.5
.package(name: "SwiftSyntax",
url: "https://github.com/apple/swift-syntax.git",
.revision("release/5.5")),
Detailed Design
Swift defines 17 different kinds of declarations,
each of which is represented by a corresponding type in SwiftSemantics
that conforms to the
Declaration protocol:
Note:
Examples of each declaration are provided in the documentation
as well as unit tests.
The Declaration protocol itself has no requirements.
However,
adopting types share many of the same properties,
such as
attributes,
modifiers,
and
keyword.
SwiftSemantics declaration types are designed to
maximize the information provided by SwiftSyntax,
closely following the structure and naming conventions of syntax nodes.
In some cases,
the library takes additional measures to refine results
into more conventional interfaces.
For example,
the PrecedenceGroup type defines nested
Associativity
and
Relation
enumerations for greater convenience and type safety.
However, in other cases,
results may be provided in their original, raw String values;
this decision is typically motivated either by
concern for possible future changes to the language
or simply out of practicality.
For the most part,
these design decisions allow developers with even a basic understanding of Swift
to work productively with parsed declarations.
There are, however, some details that warrant further discussion:
Type Members Aren’t Provided as Properties
In Swift,
a class, enumeration, or structure may contain
one or more initializers, properties, subscripts, and methods,
known as members.
A type can itself be a member of another type,
such as with CodingKeys enumerations nested within Codable-conforming types.
Likewise, a type may also have one or more associated type or type alias members.
SwiftSemantics doesn’t provide built-in support for
accessing type members directly from declaration values.
This is probably the most surprising
(and perhaps contentious)
design decision made in the library so far,
but we believe it to be the most reasonable option available.
One motivation comes down to delegation of responsibility:
DeclarationCollector and other types conforming to SyntaxVisitor
walk the abstract syntax tree,
respond to nodes as they’re visited,
and decide whether to visit or skip a node’s children.
If a Declaration were to initialize its own members,
it would have the effect of overriding
the tree walker’s decision to visit or skip any children.
We believe that an approach involving direct member initialization is inflexible
and more likely to produce unexpected results.
For instance,
if you wanted to walk the AST to collect only Swift class declarations,
there wouldn’t be a clear way to avoid needlessly initializing
the members of each top-level class
without potentially missing class declarations nested in other types.
But really,
the controlling motivation has to do with extensions —
especially when used across multiple files in a module.
Consider the following two Swift files in the same module:
// First.swift
enum A { enum B { } }
// Second.swift
extension A.B { static func f(){} }
The first file declares two enumerations:
A and B, which is nested in A.
The second file declares an extension on the type A.B
that provides a static function f().
Depending on the order in which these files are processed,
the extension on A.B may precede any knowledge of A or B.
The capacity to reconcile these declarations exceeds
that of any individual declaration (or even a syntax walker),
and any intermediate results would necessarily be incomplete
and therefore misleading.
And if that weren't enough to dissuade you...
Consider what happens when we throw generically-constrained extensions
and conditional compilation into the mix…
// Third.swift
#if platform(linux)
enum C {}
#else
protocol P {}
extension A.B where T: P { static func g(){} }
#end
Instead,
our approach delegates the responsibility for
reconciling declaration contexts to API consumers.
This is the approach we settled on for swift-doc,
and it’s worked reasonably well so far.
That said,
we’re certainly open to hearing any alternative approaches
and invite you to share any feedback about project architecture
by opening a new Issue.
Not All Language Features Are Encoded
Swift is a complex language with many different rules and concepts,
and not all of them are represented directly in SwiftSemantics.
Declaration membership,
discussed in the previous section,
is one such example.
Another is how
declaration access modifiers like public and private(set)
aren’t given any special treatment;
they’re Modifier values
like any other.
This design strategy keeps the library narrowly focused
and more adaptable to language evolution over time.
You can extend SwiftSemantics in your own code
to encode any missing language concepts that are relevant to your problem.
For example,
SwiftSemantics doesn’t encode the concept of
property wrappers,
but you could use it as the foundation of your own representation:
Declarations Don’t Include Header Documentation or Source Location
Documentation comments,
like regular comments and whitespace,
are deemed by SwiftSyntax to be “trivia” for syntax nodes.
To keep this library narrowly focused,
we don’t provide a built-in functionality for symbol documentation
(source location is omitted from declarations for similar reasons).
If you wanted to do this yourself,
you could subclass DeclarationCollector
and override the visit delegate methods
to retrieve, parse, and associate documentation comments
with their corresponding declaration.
Alternatively,
you can use SwiftDoc,
which — in conjunction with SwiftMarkup —
does offer this functionality.
Known Issues
Xcode cannot run unit tests (⌘U)
when opening the SwiftSemantics package directly,
as opposed first to generating an Xcode project file with
swift package generate-xcodeproj.
(The reported error is:
Library not loaded: @rpath/lib_InternalSwiftSyntaxParser.dylib).
As a workaround,
you can install the latest toolchain
and enable it in “Xcode > Preferences > Components > Toolchains”.
Alternatively,
you can run unit tests from the command line
with swift test.
SwiftSemantics
SwiftSemantics is a package that lets you parse Swift code into its constituent declarations.
Use SwiftSyntax to construct an abstract syntax tree from Swift source code, then walk the AST with the provided
DeclarationCollector
(or with your ownSyntaxVisitor
-conforming type) and construct aDeclaration
value for each visitedDeclSyntax
node:This package is used by swift-doc in coordination with SwiftMarkup to generate documentation for Swift projects (including this one).
Requirements
Installation
Swift Package Manager
Add the SwiftSemantics package to your target dependencies in
Package.swift
:If your project has a direct dependency
SwiftSyntax
, use the declaration below that corresponds to your Swift language version:Detailed Design
Swift defines 17 different kinds of declarations, each of which is represented by a corresponding type in SwiftSemantics that conforms to the
Declaration
protocol:AssociatedType
Class
ConditionalCompilationBlock
Deinitializer
Enumeration
Enumeration.Case
Extension
Function
Import
Initializer
Operator
PrecedenceGroup
Protocol
Structure
Subscript
Typealias
Variable
The
Declaration
protocol itself has no requirements. However, adopting types share many of the same properties, such asattributes
,modifiers
, andkeyword
.SwiftSemantics declaration types are designed to maximize the information provided by SwiftSyntax, closely following the structure and naming conventions of syntax nodes. In some cases, the library takes additional measures to refine results into more conventional interfaces. For example, the
PrecedenceGroup
type defines nestedAssociativity
andRelation
enumerations for greater convenience and type safety. However, in other cases, results may be provided in their original, rawString
values; this decision is typically motivated either by concern for possible future changes to the language or simply out of practicality.For the most part, these design decisions allow developers with even a basic understanding of Swift to work productively with parsed declarations. There are, however, some details that warrant further discussion:
Type Members Aren’t Provided as Properties
In Swift, a class, enumeration, or structure may contain one or more initializers, properties, subscripts, and methods, known as members. A type can itself be a member of another type, such as with
CodingKeys
enumerations nested withinCodable
-conforming types. Likewise, a type may also have one or more associated type or type alias members.SwiftSemantics doesn’t provide built-in support for accessing type members directly from declaration values. This is probably the most surprising (and perhaps contentious) design decision made in the library so far, but we believe it to be the most reasonable option available.
One motivation comes down to delegation of responsibility:
DeclarationCollector
and other types conforming toSyntaxVisitor
walk the abstract syntax tree, respond to nodes as they’re visited, and decide whether to visit or skip a node’s children. If aDeclaration
were to initialize its own members, it would have the effect of overriding the tree walker’s decision to visit or skip any children. We believe that an approach involving direct member initialization is inflexible and more likely to produce unexpected results. For instance, if you wanted to walk the AST to collect only Swift class declarations, there wouldn’t be a clear way to avoid needlessly initializing the members of each top-level class without potentially missing class declarations nested in other types.But really, the controlling motivation has to do with extensions — especially when used across multiple files in a module. Consider the following two Swift files in the same module:
The first file declares two enumerations:
A
andB
, which is nested inA
. The second file declares an extension on the typeA.B
that provides a static functionf()
. Depending on the order in which these files are processed, the extension onA.B
may precede any knowledge ofA
orB
. The capacity to reconcile these declarations exceeds that of any individual declaration (or even a syntax walker), and any intermediate results would necessarily be incomplete and therefore misleading.And if that weren't enough to dissuade you...
Consider what happens when we throw generically-constrained extensions and conditional compilation into the mix…
Instead, our approach delegates the responsibility for reconciling declaration contexts to API consumers.
This is the approach we settled on for swift-doc, and it’s worked reasonably well so far. That said, we’re certainly open to hearing any alternative approaches and invite you to share any feedback about project architecture by opening a new Issue.
Not All Language Features Are Encoded
Swift is a complex language with many different rules and concepts, and not all of them are represented directly in SwiftSemantics.
Declaration membership, discussed in the previous section, is one such example. Another is how declaration access modifiers like
public
andprivate(set)
aren’t given any special treatment; they’reModifier
values like any other.This design strategy keeps the library narrowly focused and more adaptable to language evolution over time.
You can extend SwiftSemantics in your own code to encode any missing language concepts that are relevant to your problem. For example, SwiftSemantics doesn’t encode the concept of property wrappers, but you could use it as the foundation of your own representation:
Declarations Don’t Include Header Documentation or Source Location
Documentation comments, like regular comments and whitespace, are deemed by SwiftSyntax to be “trivia” for syntax nodes. To keep this library narrowly focused, we don’t provide a built-in functionality for symbol documentation (source location is omitted from declarations for similar reasons).
If you wanted to do this yourself, you could subclass
DeclarationCollector
and override thevisit
delegate methods to retrieve, parse, and associate documentation comments with their corresponding declaration. Alternatively, you can use SwiftDoc, which — in conjunction with SwiftMarkup — does offer this functionality.Known Issues
swift package generate-xcodeproj
. (The reported error is:Library not loaded: @rpath/lib_InternalSwiftSyntaxParser.dylib
). As a workaround, you can install the latest toolchain and enable it in “Xcode > Preferences > Components > Toolchains”. Alternatively, you can run unit tests from the command line withswift test
.License
MIT
Contact
Mattt (@mattt)