Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Vladimir.S via swift-evolution]

Btw,..

On 20.09.2016 18:18, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution wrote:

I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.

Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought to
use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless of
where the superclass’s version comes from.

In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol
“Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A”
which wants its own definition of “bar()”.

It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own
implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by “Foo”.

From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member
function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just
like it would when overriding any other method.


See how "my" suggestion regarding requiring a keyword for implementation of 
protocol requirement (but with `override` keyword instead of `implement`) 
can be very helpful here
(And Karl, seems like "your" suggestion will not help here - I mean we'll 
have to change bar() definition in B in case A implement its own bar())


In this case, initially, B.bar() must be marked with "override" as it is 
implementing protocol's requirement. *And* this will "protect" B class in 
future if class A will implement its own bar() method:


protocol Foo {
func bar()
}

extension Foo {
func bar() {
print("I am bar.")
}
}

class A:Foo {
}

class B:A {
*override* func bar() { // currently protocol impelentation
print("I am B.")
}
}

and then if

class A:Foo {
override func bar() {...}
}

,B's definition will not be changed.

Then we have a question regarding super.bar() inside B.bar(), i.e. should 
it be accessible or not. I believe we should consider if it could be 
implemented, so in case A has no bar(), super.bar() will call protocol's 
implementation, otherwise (if A contains bar()) - A.bar() will be called. 
Don't know if this is what very hard to implement.
Probably as first step super.bar() will not be allowed inside of protocol 
implementation.


Swift allows for protocols to have default *implementations* for 
requirements. And *also* Swift allows you to *not* implement requirement 
that has default implementation in conformed type.
When you don't implement such requirement in type - the type *inherits* 
that implementation. We have classical inheritance scheme like in 
inheritance of super type's method. When you override super type's method 
you have to use `override`. I believe overriding the inherited default 
implementation of requirement - also should be marked with `override`.


Then, Swift allows protocol to have extension in any source file in 
project. You can have no default implementation *at moment of writing* your 
type, but you can have such default implementation *at moment of 
compilation*. So, as soon as we *can't* know if protocol's requirement will 
*actually* have default implementation during the compilation - logically 
that we should use `override` to mark each method/prop defined as 
implementation of protocol, to suppose that there *is* default 
implementation which will be *overridden* by our custom implementation.




To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are
defined in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.

If the library changes to give “A” its own custom implementation of
“bar()”, that *should not* affect client code—because the class “A” still
conforms to “Foo” so it still is known to have a “bar()” method—but right
now it *does*:

With the status quo, the simple change of moving a function between a
protocol extension and a conforming class currently requires downstream
source-code modifications in clients (in this case, adding `override` to
“B.bar()”).

I propose that `override` should be required in subclasses on any method
which the superclass proffers as a customization point, no matter the
provenance of that claim.

Nevin



On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Zhao Xin via swift-evolution
> wrote:

Thank you to  Игорь Никитин and Adrian Zubarev. Now I can convince
myself for this behavior.

As Adrian's example shows, there is no `bar()` implemented in `class
A`, so there is no `override func bar()` in class B`. My thought
that  `self.bar()` would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`, is called
"dynamic binding", which is basing on the `override`. Since there is no
`override`, there is no "dynamic binding". I thought "dynamic binding"
was basing on dynamic type of `self`. It was not. I was wrong.

The behavior is clear now. In class A's `self.bar()`, the runtime finds
that there is no implementation of `bar()` in `class A`, so it calls
the `bar` in protocol extension. In class A's 

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Vladimir.S via swift-evolution]

On 21.09.2016 9:30, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

If the reference to the instance of the class is cast to the protocol type,
I want other object to be aware of my API contract not the specific class
instance, then the protocol default method gets called and that is several
shades of not appropriate for me.


Could you provide some example? I was not able to reproduce such 
behavior(and was not expected to be able):
(Probably, you want to mention helper methods in protocol extension that 
was not defined *in protocol itself*, then yes. But AFAIK not for the 
*default implementation* of protocol requirement i.e. the method/prop that 
*is* declared in "main" protocol definition)


protocol A {
func foo()
}

extension A {
func foo() { print("A") }
}

class C : A {
func foo() { print("C") }
}


let a : A = C()
a.foo() // "C"


func f(a: A) {
a.foo()
}
f(a: a) // "C"


func g(a: T) where T : A {
a.foo()
}
g(a: C()) // "C"


func h(a: T) where T.Iterator.Element : A {
for e in a {
e.foo()
}
}
h(a: [C()]) // "C"


func i(a: T) where T.Iterator.Element == A {
for e in a {
e.foo()
}
}
i(a: [a]) // "C"

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Sep 2016, at 01:41, Zhao Xin  wrote:
> 
> > I am not sure why protocol extension need to differ so much and present 
> > dispatch rules that are potentially very confusing. 
> 
> I think that both the Java and Swift designers want to get the benefits of 
> multiple inherences, in the meaning time, they don't want to support multiple 
> objects inherence. 
> 
> For Java only, as Java allows implicit override, the `@override` is optional. 
> Related bugs are hard to find if you don't use  `@override`.
> 
> For me, the current rule is simple. 
> 1. If there is a `override`, it is "class dynamic binding". If there is no 
> `override`, it is not. The dynamic type of `self` is irrelevant.
> 2. The method in 'protocol extension` is default, which means fail safe. It 
> is not a method of a class until the class implements it.
> 

Classic dynamic binding has its charms yes ;).

To be on point, once you adopt the protocol, and thus the extensions that may 
also have been declared and the default methods, and you decide to override or 
happen to override the default implementation it is still not enough to make 
sure you will call your implementation in your own code. If the reference to 
the instance of the class is cast to the protocol type, I want other object to 
be aware of my API contract not the specific class instance, then the protocol 
default method gets called and that is several shades of not appropriate for me.

https://nomothetis.svbtle.com/the-ghost-of-swift-bugs-future (with subclassing 
this can get more complicated)

Reasoning:
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/001922.html

... hence why turning protocol dispatching into dynamic dispatching, unless the 
user says otherwise (@Kevin: sometimes it makes the language easier to use 
without sacrificing speed if we renounce a tad of purity and accept a dedicated 
keyword as compiler hint... a simple @static or something would suffice).
Updating a version of a binary framework could be covered in extra perils you 
do not need.

> Zhaoxin
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Goffredo Marocchi  wrote:
>> This would make for hilarious debugging session if you have the misfortune 
>> of using a third party binary framework that gets updated and provide 
>> default implementations for some methods in the protocol extensions.
>> 
>> When Java 8 also decided to blur the lines between classes (implementations) 
>> and interfaces (equivalent of protocols on this side of the fence more or 
>> less... anyways they represent behaviours/API contracts), they also provided 
>> a very simple rule to determine on the code would behave at runtime.
>>> Extending Interfaces That Contain Default Methods
>>> 
>>> When you extend an interface that contains a default method, you can do the 
>>> following:
>>> 
>>> Not mention the default method at all, which lets your extended interface 
>>> inherit the default method.
>>> Redeclare the default method, which makes it abstract.
>>> Redefine the default method, which overrides it.
>> 
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/defaultmethods.html
>> 
>> I am not sure why protocol extension need to differ so much and present 
>> dispatch rules that are potentially very confusing. 
>> 
>> Casting at runtime should *never* change what implementation of a method 
>> gets called. 
>> For a safe by default language the fact that this can occur is quite 
>> puzzling and worrying. I am not sure the cost of implementing the current 
>> static/dynamic dispatch rules for default methods in protocol extensions is 
>> worth it to say it bluntly, but please enlighten me if I am missing an 
>> obvious huge pink elephant in the room here.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 20 Sep 2016, at 16:18, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.
>>> 
>>> Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought to 
>>> use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless of 
>>> where the superclass’s version comes from.
>>> 
>>> In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol 
>>> “Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A” 
>>> which wants its own definition of “bar()”.
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own 
>>> implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by 
>>> “Foo”.
>>> 
>>> From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member 
>>> function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just 
>>> like it would when overriding any other method.
>>> 
>>> To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are 
>>> defined in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.
>>> 
>>> If the library changes 

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Zhao Xin via swift-evolution]

> I am not sure why protocol extension need to differ so much and present
dispatch rules that are potentially very confusing.

I think that both the Java and Swift designers want to get the benefits
of multiple inherences, in the meaning time, they don't want to support
multiple objects inherence.

For Java only, as Java allows implicit override, the `@override` is
optional. Related bugs are hard to find if you don't use  `@override`.

For me, the current rule is simple.
1. If there is a `override`, it is "class dynamic binding". If there is no
`override`, it is not. The dynamic type of `self` is irrelevant.
2. The method in 'protocol extension` is default, which means fail safe. It
is not a method of a class until the class implements it.

Zhaoxin

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Goffredo Marocchi 
wrote:

> This would make for hilarious debugging session if you have the misfortune
> of using a third party binary framework that gets updated and provide
> default implementations for some methods in the protocol extensions.
>
> When Java 8 also decided to blur the lines between classes
> (implementations) and interfaces (equivalent of protocols on this side of
> the fence more or less... anyways they represent behaviours/API contracts),
> they also provided a very simple rule to determine on the code would behave
> at runtime.
>
> Extending Interfaces That Contain Default Methods
>
> When you extend an interface that contains a default method, you can do
> the following:
>
>- Not mention the default method at all, which lets your extended
>interface inherit the default method.
>- Redeclare the default method, which makes it abstract.
>- Redefine the default method, which overrides it.
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/defaultmethods.html
>
> I am not sure why protocol extension need to differ so much and present
> dispatch rules that are potentially very confusing.
>
> Casting at runtime should *never* change what implementation of a method
> gets called.
> For a safe by default language the fact that this can occur is quite
> puzzling and worrying. I am not sure the cost of implementing the current
> static/dynamic dispatch rules for default methods in protocol extensions is
> worth it to say it bluntly, but please enlighten me if I am missing an
> obvious huge pink elephant in the room here.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Sep 2016, at 16:18, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.
>
> Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought
> to use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless
> of where the superclass’s version comes from.
>
> In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol
> “Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A”
> which wants its own definition of “bar()”.
>
> It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own
> implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by
> “Foo”.
>
> From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member
> function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just
> like it would when overriding any other method.
>
> To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are
> defined in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.
>
> If the library changes to give “A” its own custom implementation of
> “bar()”, that *should not* affect client code—because the class “A” still
> conforms to “Foo” so it still is known to have a “bar()” method—but right
> now it *does*:
>
> With the status quo, the simple change of moving a function between a
> protocol extension and a conforming class currently requires downstream
> source-code modifications in clients (in this case, adding `override` to
> “B.bar()”).
>
> I propose that `override` should be required in subclasses on any method
> which the superclass proffers as a customization point, no matter the
> provenance of that claim.
>
> Nevin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Zhao Xin via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Thank you to  Игорь Никитин and Adrian Zubarev. Now I can convince myself
>> for this behavior.
>>
>> As Adrian's example shows, there is no `bar()` implemented in `class A`,
>> so there is no `override func bar()` in class B`. My thought that  
>> `self.bar()`
>> would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`, is called "dynamic binding",
>> which is basing on the `override`. Since there is no `override`, there is
>> no "dynamic binding". I thought "dynamic binding" was basing on dynamic
>> type of `self`. It was not. I was wrong.
>>
>> The behavior is clear now. In class A's `self.bar()`, the runtime finds
>> that there is no implementation of `bar()` in `class A`, so it calls the
>> `bar` in protocol 

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Zhao Xin via swift-evolution]

I understand your point on "adding additional `override` to
re-implementation of default method in protocol extension". However, I
don't stand for it.

If you use `override`, that means `B` could use `super.bar()` to get the
original `bar()` implementation. Then if  `class A` implement `bar()`
someday. The `super.bar()` call in `class B` will be ambitious, it could be
`A.bar()` or `Foo.bar()`. That ambiguity is the same as the multiple object
inherences languages like c++. We all know that Swift can only inherit to
one object. That is why the behavior is what it is now.

Zhaoxin

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky <
nevin.brackettrozin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.
>
> Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought
> to use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless
> of where the superclass’s version comes from.
>
> In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol
> “Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A”
> which wants its own definition of “bar()”.
>
> It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own
> implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by
> “Foo”.
>
> From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member
> function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just
> like it would when overriding any other method.
>
> To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are
> defined in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.
>
> If the library changes to give “A” its own custom implementation of
> “bar()”, that *should not* affect client code—because the class “A” still
> conforms to “Foo” so it still is known to have a “bar()” method—but right
> now it *does*:
>
> With the status quo, the simple change of moving a function between a
> protocol extension and a conforming class currently requires downstream
> source-code modifications in clients (in this case, adding `override` to
> “B.bar()”).
>
> I propose that `override` should be required in subclasses on any method
> which the superclass proffers as a customization point, no matter the
> provenance of that claim.
>
> Nevin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Zhao Xin via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Thank you to  Игорь Никитин and Adrian Zubarev. Now I can convince myself
>> for this behavior.
>>
>> As Adrian's example shows, there is no `bar()` implemented in `class A`,
>> so there is no `override func bar()` in class B`. My thought that  
>> `self.bar()`
>> would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`, is called "dynamic binding",
>> which is basing on the `override`. Since there is no `override`, there is
>> no "dynamic binding". I thought "dynamic binding" was basing on dynamic
>> type of `self`. It was not. I was wrong.
>>
>> The behavior is clear now. In class A's `self.bar()`, the runtime finds
>> that there is no implementation of `bar()` in `class A`, so it calls the
>> `bar` in protocol extension. In class A's `(self as! B).bar()`, as `class
>> B` contains the implementation of `bar()`, the runtime calls it.
>>
>> Zhaoxin
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I can’t tell you the reason, but to me it feels like it’s doing the
>>> following thing:
>>>
>>> + - - (Type: B) - - +
>>> |   |
>>> | func bar()+ - + (Type: A) - - +< - - - - - - 
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>>> |   |   |   
>>>|
>>> + - - - - - - - + func output() + - + (Protocol: Foo) - - +  — - self.bar() 
>>> - + - (self as! B).bar() - +
>>> |   | | 
>>>   |
>>> + - - - - - - - + (default) func bar()|  <- - - - - - - 
>>> - +
>>> | |
>>> + - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>>>
>>> class A:Foo {
>>>
>>> func bar() {}
>>>
>>> func output() {
>>> print(type(of:self))
>>> self.bar()
>>> (self as! B).bar()
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> class B:A {
>>>
>>> override func bar() {
>>> print("I am B.")
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Would solve this temporarily.
>>>
>>> And there we are again with the same discussion if custom implementation
>>> of protocol members, which have default implementation, should have the
>>> override keyword or not.
>>>
>>> Imagine your code like this (not valid code):
>>>
>>> protocol Foo {
>>> func bar()
>>> }
>>>
>>> extension Foo {
>>> func bar() {
>>> print("I am bar.")
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> class A : Foo {
>>>
>>> func output() {
>>>
>>> print(type(of:self))
>>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution]

This would make for hilarious debugging session if you have the misfortune of 
using a third party binary framework that gets updated and provide default 
implementations for some methods in the protocol extensions.

When Java 8 also decided to blur the lines between classes (implementations) 
and interfaces (equivalent of protocols on this side of the fence more or 
less... anyways they represent behaviours/API contracts), they also provided a 
very simple rule to determine on the code would behave at runtime.
> Extending Interfaces That Contain Default Methods
> 
> When you extend an interface that contains a default method, you can do the 
> following:
> 
> Not mention the default method at all, which lets your extended interface 
> inherit the default method.
> Redeclare the default method, which makes it abstract.
> Redefine the default method, which overrides it.

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/defaultmethods.html

I am not sure why protocol extension need to differ so much and present 
dispatch rules that are potentially very confusing. 

Casting at runtime should *never* change what implementation of a method gets 
called. 
For a safe by default language the fact that this can occur is quite puzzling 
and worrying. I am not sure the cost of implementing the current static/dynamic 
dispatch rules for default methods in protocol extensions is worth it to say it 
bluntly, but please enlighten me if I am missing an obvious huge pink elephant 
in the room here.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Sep 2016, at 16:18, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.
> 
> Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought to 
> use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless of 
> where the superclass’s version comes from.
> 
> In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol 
> “Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A” 
> which wants its own definition of “bar()”.
> 
> It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own 
> implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by 
> “Foo”.
> 
> From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member 
> function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just like 
> it would when overriding any other method.
> 
> To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are defined 
> in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.
> 
> If the library changes to give “A” its own custom implementation of “bar()”, 
> that *should not* affect client code—because the class “A” still conforms to 
> “Foo” so it still is known to have a “bar()” method—but right now it *does*:
> 
> With the status quo, the simple change of moving a function between a 
> protocol extension and a conforming class currently requires downstream 
> source-code modifications in clients (in this case, adding `override` to 
> “B.bar()”).
> 
> I propose that `override` should be required in subclasses on any method 
> which the superclass proffers as a customization point, no matter the 
> provenance of that claim.
> 
> Nevin
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Zhao Xin via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> Thank you to  Игорь Никитин and Adrian Zubarev. Now I can convince myself 
>> for this behavior.
>> 
>> As Adrian's example shows, there is no `bar()` implemented in `class A`, so 
>> there is no `override func bar()` in class B`. My thought that  `self.bar()` 
>> would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`, is called "dynamic binding", 
>> which is basing on the `override`. Since there is no `override`, there is no 
>> "dynamic binding". I thought "dynamic binding" was basing on dynamic type of 
>> `self`. It was not. I was wrong.
>> 
>> The behavior is clear now. In class A's `self.bar()`, the runtime finds that 
>> there is no implementation of `bar()` in `class A`, so it calls the `bar` in 
>> protocol extension. In class A's `(self as! B).bar()`, as `class B` contains 
>> the implementation of `bar()`, the runtime calls it.
>> 
>> Zhaoxin
>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> I can’t tell you the reason, but to me it feels like it’s doing the 
>>> following thing:
>>> 
>>> + - - (Type: B) - - +
>>> |   |
>>> | func bar()+ - + (Type: A) - - +< - - - - - - 
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>>> |   |   |   
>>>|
>>> + - - - - - - - + func output() + - + (Protocol: Foo) - - +  — - self.bar() 
>>> - + - (self as! B).bar() - +
>>> |   | | 
>>>   |
>>> + 

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution]

I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.

Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought to
use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless of
where the superclass’s version comes from.

In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol
“Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A”
which wants its own definition of “bar()”.

It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own
implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by
“Foo”.

>From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member
function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just
like it would when overriding any other method.

To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are
defined in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.

If the library changes to give “A” its own custom implementation of
“bar()”, that *should not* affect client code—because the class “A” still
conforms to “Foo” so it still is known to have a “bar()” method—but right
now it *does*:

With the status quo, the simple change of moving a function between a
protocol extension and a conforming class currently requires downstream
source-code modifications in clients (in this case, adding `override` to
“B.bar()”).

I propose that `override` should be required in subclasses on any method
which the superclass proffers as a customization point, no matter the
provenance of that claim.

Nevin



On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Zhao Xin via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Thank you to  Игорь Никитин and Adrian Zubarev. Now I can convince myself
> for this behavior.
>
> As Adrian's example shows, there is no `bar()` implemented in `class A`,
> so there is no `override func bar()` in class B`. My thought that  
> `self.bar()`
> would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`, is called "dynamic binding",
> which is basing on the `override`. Since there is no `override`, there is
> no "dynamic binding". I thought "dynamic binding" was basing on dynamic
> type of `self`. It was not. I was wrong.
>
> The behavior is clear now. In class A's `self.bar()`, the runtime finds
> that there is no implementation of `bar()` in `class A`, so it calls the
> `bar` in protocol extension. In class A's `(self as! B).bar()`, as `class
> B` contains the implementation of `bar()`, the runtime calls it.
>
> Zhaoxin
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> I can’t tell you the reason, but to me it feels like it’s doing the
>> following thing:
>>
>> + - - (Type: B) - - +
>> |   |
>> | func bar()+ - + (Type: A) - - +< - - - - - - - 
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>> |   |   |
>>   |
>> + - - - - - - - + func output() + - + (Protocol: Foo) - - +  — - self.bar() 
>> - + - (self as! B).bar() - +
>> |   | |  
>>  |
>> + - - - - - - - + (default) func bar()|  <- - - - - - - 
>> - +
>> | |
>> + - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>>
>> class A:Foo {
>>
>> func bar() {}
>>
>> func output() {
>> print(type(of:self))
>> self.bar()
>> (self as! B).bar()
>> }
>> }
>>
>> class B:A {
>>
>> override func bar() {
>> print("I am B.")
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Would solve this temporarily.
>>
>> And there we are again with the same discussion if custom implementation
>> of protocol members, which have default implementation, should have the
>> override keyword or not.
>>
>> Imagine your code like this (not valid code):
>>
>> protocol Foo {
>> func bar()
>> }
>>
>> extension Foo {
>> func bar() {
>> print("I am bar.")
>> }
>> }
>>
>> class A : Foo {
>>
>> func output() {
>>
>> print(type(of:self))
>> default.bar() // fallback an call directly the default 
>> implementation whenever needed
>> self.bar() // will print "I am bar." on A().output() but should 
>> print "I am B." if Self == B
>> (self as! B).bar()
>> }
>> }
>>
>> class B : A {
>>
>> override func bar() {
>> print("I am B.")
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I still think default implementations should be called through something
>> like default. + whenever you override a default implementation you’d
>> need override. There is a discussion going on: Mark protocol methods
>> with their protocol. I clearly did not solved your issue, but I might
>> have wake your interest to participate. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>>
>> Am 20. September 2016 um 04:13:22, Zhao Xin via swift-users (
>> swift-us...@swift.org) schrieb:
>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] [swift-user]Unexpected behavior of protocol extension.

[Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution]

I can’t tell you the reason, but to me it feels like it’s doing the following 
thing:

+ - - (Type: B) - - +
|   |
| func bar()+ - + (Type: A) - - +< - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - +
|   |   |   
   |
+ - - - - - - - + func output() + - + (Protocol: Foo) - - +  — - self.bar() - + 
- (self as! B).bar() - +
|   | |   |
+ - - - - - - - + (default) func bar()|  <- - - - - - - - +
| |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - +
class A:Foo {
 
func bar() {}
 
func output() {
print(type(of:self))
self.bar()
(self as! B).bar()
}
}

class B:A {

override func bar() {
print("I am B.")
}
}
Would solve this temporarily.

And there we are again with the same discussion if custom implementation of 
protocol members, which have default implementation, should have the override 
keyword or not.

Imagine your code like this (not valid code):

protocol Foo {
func bar()
}

extension Foo {
func bar() {
print("I am bar.")
}
}

class A : Foo {
 
func output() {
 
print(type(of:self))
default.bar() // fallback an call directly the default implementation 
whenever needed
self.bar() // will print "I am bar." on A().output() but should print 
"I am B." if Self == B
(self as! B).bar()
}
}

class B : A {

override func bar() {
print("I am B.")
}
}
I still think default implementations should be called through something like 
default. + whenever you override a default implementation you’d need override. 
There is a discussion going on: Mark protocol methods with their protocol. I 
clearly did not solved your issue, but I might have wake your interest to 
participate. ;)



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 20. September 2016 um 04:13:22, Zhao Xin via swift-users 
(swift-us...@swift.org) schrieb:

See below code.

protocol Foo {
    func bar()
}

extension Foo {
    func bar() {
        print("I am bar.")
    }
}

class A:Foo {
    func output() {
        print(type(of:self)) // prints "B".
        self.bar() // prints "I am bar."
        (self as! B).bar() // prints "I am B."
    }
}

class B:A {
    func bar() {
        print("I am B.")
    }
}

let b = B()
b.output()

I thought `self.bar()` would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`. It didn't. In 
my opinion,  `type(of:self) is B.type`, so they should be the same, shouldn't 
they?

Zhaoxin
___
swift-users mailing list
swift-us...@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution