I just tried this and it causes major breakage with associated type inference and the expression checker so its probably more trouble than its worth.
So back to the three options: 1) Do nothing, and give up on fixing https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-617 <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-617> for now 2) Finish https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/12174 <https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/12174> and make the new semantics only take effect in -swift-version 5 3) ??? Magic Slava > On Oct 6, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Slava Pestov <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev >
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
