> On Jun 25, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Austin,
>
> I’m sorry to say, but this proposal makes me really sad. I consider
> associated type inference one of the more elegant aspects of Swift. It would
> be very unfortunate to lose it.
There are lots of "elegant" things that Swift could do, but has chosen not to
do for pragmatic reasons (e.g. generalized implicit conversions, type inference
that crosses statement boundaries). Given how terrible the development
experience can be right now in the worst case, I would happily trade off some
measure of convenience for better tooling.
>
> I am really pleased to see that Dmitri has offered an alternative that looks
> very reasonable. I’m hoping the Doug or Chris (or someone else from the core
> team) can chime in on the feasibility of this alternative. If it is
> considered viable and Dmitri isn’t able to write the proposal I would be
> happy to do so.
>
> If the alternative isn’t viable and we must proceed with a proposal to remove
> inference I think there is one crucial thing to consider that isn’t discussed
> in this proposal: retroactive modeling. As far as I can tell, this proposal
> will *prohibit* some types from conforming to some protocols. Specifically,
> if a type defines a typealias with a name that matches the name of an
> associatedtype in a protocol it would not be possible to retroactively model
> that protocol. Because of the name conflict an associatedtype declaration
> would not be allowed and the existing typealias would not meet the
> requirement. Consider this example:
I actually think that the delineation between `associatedtype` and `typealias`
should make this legal, and will change the proposal as such. It should be
legal to bind an associated type to a type alias, and it should be possible to
define a type alias that shadows (but does not conflict with) an associated
type definition. This would fix the issue with retroactive modeling.
>
> // Module A
> public struct S {
> public typealias Foo = Int
> }
>
> // Module B
> public protocol P {
> associatedtype Foo
> }
>
> // Module C
> import A
> import B
>
> // compiler error: `S` does not meet the `Foo` associatedtype requirement
> extension S : P {
> // compiler error: cannot define associatedtype `Foo` for `S` which
> already declares typealias `Foo`
> associatedtype Foo = String
> }
>
> I cannot support any proposal that breaks retroactive modeling in this way.
Addendum aside, retroactive modeling is already suboptimal or broken in
multiple ways today - try conforming a protocol with associated type 'Element'
to a different protocol whose 'Element' means something completely different.
>
> Another item that is not mentioned in this proposal is that typealias is not
> the only way to meet an associatedtype requirement in the language today.
> For example, this code is legal:
>
> protocol Foo {
> associatedtype Bar
> }
> struct S : Foo {
> struct Bar {}
> }
I don't see how this is relevant.
struct S : Foo {
associatedtype S = Bar
struct Bar { }
}
>
> If we *must* drop inference I prefer the alternative of just doing that:
> dropping inference, but otherwise leaving things alone. All associated type
> requirements would need to be explicitly satisfied using one of the
> mechanisms that is currently valid for satisfying a non-inferred associated
> type requirement. The ability to satisfy these requirements in a variety of
> ways is a *benefit* that provides valuable flexibility.
I disagree that it's a benefit. It certainly saves a couple of keystrokes, but
you gain or lose no expressive power from this proposal, addendum included. I'm
happy to expand the alternatives section to discuss the other ways to satisfy
associated type requirements, though.
>
> I agree that something should look for a good solution to the subclass
> typealias issue, but I don’t think this is it. Ideally we would find a
> solution that works well in the presence of retroactive modeling making code
> such as the following valid:
>
> // module A
> protocol P1 {
> associatedtype Foo
>
> @infers(Foo)
> var foo: Foo { get }
> }
> // module B
> protocol P2 {
> associatedtype Foo
>
> @infers(Foo)
> func bar() -> Foo
> }
>
> // module C
> class Base {
> let foo: String = "foo"
> }
> class Derived : Base {
> func bar() -> Int { return 42 }
> }
>
> // module D
> import A
> import B
> import C
> import D
> extension Base : P1 {}
> extension Derived : P2 {}
>
> We don’t always control the protocol or type definitions we want to make work
> together. The ability to make code that “should work together” actually do
> so with minimal fuss is one of the great things about Swift. Any time we
> interfere with retroactive modeling we increase the need for boilerplate
> adapter types, etc.
>
> One detail appears to be implied by the proposal but isn’t explicitly stated.
> Specifically, it looks like the intent is that other than only being valid
> when used to meet a protocol requirement, associatedtype otherwise works like
> a typealias. It would be good to have this behavior clarified if the
> proposal moves forward.
>
> -Matthew
>
>
>
>> On Jun 25, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Per Chris Lattner's list of open Swift 3 design topics
>> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/21369
>> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/21369>), I've put
>> together a proposal for removing type inference for associated types.
>>
>> It can be found here:
>> https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-assoctypeinf/proposals/XXXX-remove-assoctype-inference.md
>>
>> <https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-assoctypeinf/proposals/XXXX-remove-assoctype-inference.md>
>>
>> Thoughts, criticism, and feedback welcome. There are at least two slightly
>> different designs in the proposal, and I'm sure people will have ideas for
>> even more.
>>
>> Best,
>> Austin
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
