Another solution is to change the Collection protocol as follows,
protocol Collection {
associatedtype ConformingType = Self
associatedtype Iterator = IndexingIterator<ConformingType>
…
}
extension Collection where Iterator == IndexingIterator<ConformingType> {
func makeIterator() -> IndexingIterator<ConformingType> { … }
}
I believe this will fix the source compatibility issue and also make ‘for x in
Derived()’ type check. The downside is that the witness table for a Collection
conformance now stores an additional associated type for the static conforming
class type. However that’s exactly what you need to store somewhere to make
this work for non-final classes.
Slava
> On Oct 6, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Slava Pestov via swift-dev <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Consider this code,
>
> class Base : Collection {
> var startIndex: Int { return 0 }
>
> var endIndex: Int { return 10 }
>
> func index(after i: Int) -> Int { return i + 1 }
>
> subscript(index: Int) -> Int { return index }
> }
>
> We infer the associated type ‘Iterator’ as ‘IndexingIterator<Base>’. I can
> use an instance of Base as a sequence just fine:
>
> for x in Base() {} // OK
>
> Now if I subclass Base, the associated type is still ‘IndexingIterator<Base>’:
>
> class Derived : Base {}
>
> However the implementation of makeIterator is defined in a constrained
> extension by the standard library,
>
> extension Collection where Self.Iterator == IndexingIterator<Self> {
> func makeIterator() -> IndexingIterator<Self> { … }
> }
>
> So I cannot call it on a subclass:
>
> for x in Derived() {} // fails
>
> The error is bizarre, "'IndexingIterator<Base>' is not convertible to
> 'IndexingIterator<Derived>’” — I’m not doing a conversion here.
>
> If you try to call makeIterator() directly, you get an ambiguity error
> instead:
>
> col.swift:17:5: error: ambiguous reference to member 'makeIterator()'
> _ = Derived().makeIterator()
> ^~~~~~~~~
> Swift.Collection:6:17: note: found this candidate
> public func makeIterator() -> IndexingIterator<Self>
> ^
> Swift.Sequence:5:17: note: found this candidate
> public func makeIterator() -> Self
> ^
>
> Now I couldn’t come up with an example where the code compiles but crashes at
> runtime because of a type mismatch, but it’s not outside the realm of
> possibility.
>
> With my PR here the conformance itself no longer type checks:
> https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/12174
> <https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/12174>
>
> col.swift:1:7: error: type 'Base' does not conform to protocol 'Collection'
> class Base : Collection {
> ^
> Swift.Sequence:5:17: note: candidate has non-matching type '<Self> () ->
> Self' [with Element = Int, Index = Int, IndexDistance = Int, Iterator =
> IndexingIterator<Base>, SubSequence = Slice<Base>, Indices =
> DefaultIndices<Base>]
> public func makeIterator() -> Self
> ^
> Swift.Collection:6:17: note: candidate has non-matching type '<Self> () ->
> IndexingIterator<Self>' [with Element = Int, Index = Int, IndexDistance =
> Int, Iterator = IndexingIterator<Base>, SubSequence = Slice<Base>, Indices =
> DefaultIndices<Base>]
> public func makeIterator() -> IndexingIterator<Self>
>
> I found one example in our code base where this pattern comes up, and that’s
> SyntaxCollection in tools/SwiftSyntax/SyntaxCollection.swift. It has no
> subclasses so making it final works there.
>
> This was reported externally as https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-1863
> <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-1863>. I’m not sure if the user expects it
> to work or just to produce a reasonable diagnostic instructing them to make
> the class final.
>
> What does everyone think of this?
>
> 1) Can anyone suggest a way to make it work, so that ‘for x in Derived()’
> type checks and the correct Self type (Base, not Derived) for the
> substitution?
>
> 2) Should we just ban such ’non-covariant’ conformances? There is precedent
> for this — in Swift 3, we used to allow non-final classes to conform to
> protocols whose requirements had same-type constraints with the right hand
> side equal to ‘Self’, and Doug closed this hole in Swift 4. My PR is
> essentially a more comprehensive fix for this hole.
>
> 3) Should we allow the hole to remain in place, admitting non-final classes
> that model Collection, at the cost of not being able to ever fix
> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-617 <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-617>?
>
> Slava
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
