@David If you would split up the statement like this... let x = 0 *** 4 let result = x +++ 0
... the compiler would report an ambiguity error, because both overloads of *** are valid and of equivalent priority. You could do something like this though: let x: Int = 0 *** 4 // picks f2 let result = x +++ 0 // picks f4 or this: let x: String = 0 *** 4 // picks f1 let result = x +++ 0 // picks f3 Now the compiler has enough type information to know which overload to pick. @Mark Ok, thanks. I reported a bug at https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3209 <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3209> and assigned it to you. @Rien Yes, it is even possible to use the operators as the example above shows, but it is requires a bit more explicit type information so that the type checker knows which overload to pick. Thanks and best regards, Toni > Am 15.11.2016 um 08:41 schrieb Rien <r...@balancingrock.nl>: > > I seem to remember that while it is possible to define, the compiler will > yield an error if you try to use the functions (“cannot resolve”). > > Regards, > Rien > > Site: http://balancingrock.nl > Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com > Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien > Project: http://swiftfire.nl > > > > >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 23:05, Toni Suter via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I would have expected that the following code reports an error, because >> of ambiguous function overloads: >> >> infix operator ***: MultiplicationPrecedence >> infix operator +++: AdditionPrecedence >> >> func ***(x: Int, y: Int) -> String { >> print("f1") >> return "" >> } >> >> func ***(x: Int, y: Int) -> Int { >> print("f2") >> return 0 >> } >> >> func +++(x: String, y: Int) -> Int { >> print("f3") >> return 0 >> } >> >> func +++(x: Int, y: Int) -> Int { >> print("f4") >> return 0 >> } >> >> let result = 0 *** 4 +++ 0 // prints f2 and f4 >> >> >> As far as I can tell, there are two possible overload resolutions: f1 + f3 >> or f2 + f4. >> I thought that these two solutions get an "equivalent score" and therefore >> there would >> be a compile error. However, that's not the case. Instead, the type checker >> picks >> f2 and f4. >> >> So, I guess my question is, whether there is some rule, that prefers >> operators, which have the same argument types and the same return type >> or whether this is simply a bug. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> Toni >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-users mailing list >> swift-users@swift.org >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users >
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
