Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 7, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Mark Lacey <mark.la...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-dev
>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While working on the type checker, I came across an interesting case for
>> associated type inference with the ‘Indices’ type of RandomAccessCollection.
>> At issue is a simple model of RandomAccessCollection where the Index type is
>> Int:
>>
>> class ReferenceCollection : RandomAccessCollection {
>> typealias Index = Int
>>
>> var startIndex: Int {
>> return 0
>> }
>>
>> var endIndex: Int {
>> return 1
>> }
>>
>> subscript(index: Int) -> String {
>> return ""
>> }
>>
>> func index(after i: Int) -> Int {
>> return 1
>> }
>>
>> func index(before i: Int) -> Int {
>> return 0
>> }
>> }
>>
>> What’s the inferred associated Indices? The RandomAccessIterator protocol
>> has a default:
>>
>> protocol RandomAccessCollection {
>> associatedtype Indices : _RandomAccessIndexable, BidirectionalCollection
>> = DefaultRandomAccessIndices<Self>
>> var indices: Indices { get }
>> }
>>
>> which will kick in if nothing else can be inferred. There is also an
>> implementation for this defaulted case in a protocol extension from which we
>> can infer Indices:
>>
>> extension RandomAccessCollection where Indices ==
>> DefaultRandomAccessIndices<Self> {
>> public var indices: DefaultRandomAccessIndices<Self> { }
>> }
>>
>> Those line up, which is easy, but there is *another* protocol extension of
>> RandomAccessIterator from which we can infer Indices:
>>
>> extension RandomAccessCollection
>> where Index : Strideable,
>> Index.Stride == IndexDistance,
>> Indices == CountableRange<Index> {
>>
>> public var indices: CountableRange<Index> {
>> return startIndex..<endIndex
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Note that both DefaultRandomAccessIndices<ReferenceCollection> and
>> CountableRange<Int> would be valid inferences for Indices. We have three
>> options:
>>
>> 1) Consider type inference to be ambiguous, because there is no natural
>> ordering between the two protocol extensions (they have incompatible
>> same-type constraints on the associated type Indices).
>> 2) Consider the first protocol extension to “win” because… we prefer the
>> extension which corresponds to the associated type default (?). This would
>> be consistent with a world where we don’t have associated type inference at
>> all. (It also matches Swift 3.0.1’s behavior).
>> 3) Consider the second protocol extension to “win” because…the other
>> protocol extension corresponds to the associated type default, and could
>> therefore be considered to be a lowest-common-denominator implementation
>> only there to provide the most basic defaults.
>
> I can see the appeal of option 3, but IMO anything other than option 1 seems
> pretty brittle. Presumably with that option, and with the class providing a
> typealias for Indices, you would no longer have an ambiguity and the code
> would compile, correct?
Yes, adding an explicit typealias (to either of them) fixes the issue.
- Doug
> Mark
>
>>
>> For reference, Swift 3.0.1 picked
>> DefaultRandomAccessIndices<ReferenceCollection>, current Swift master picks
>> CountableRange<Int>, and my work-in-progress to improve the type checker
>> calls it ambiguous, hence the question :)
>>
>> - Doug
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-dev mailing list
>> swift-dev@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
>
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
