Sent from my iPad
> On May 10, 2016, at 5:24 PM, Hooman Mehr <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On May 10, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> That said, I’m not sure I understand the concrete use-cases. When is this >>> concept important? When is “Self” not good enough? >> >> The only case where there is new functionality is when this is used in a >> protocol requirement. I gave an example earlier today. > > This functionality is the key: Ability of an open (non-final) class to > conform to a protocol that lets it return an instance of the conforming type > (itself). Self does not work for that and we can’t change its behavior (or > can we?) So one solution seems to be Matt’s proposal. This functionality is > important for me and an example use case is class clusters. For the client > code it is sealed and acts just like a final class, but internally it may > return a subclass that is an implementation detail. We should be able to do > this. Agree and this is why I am willing to write the proposal for this. There was a discussion a few months ago about this problem and a few solutions were kicked around. The biggest problem with this approach at the time was lack of a good name, which I believe we now have in Type. I'm going to let the discussion continue for a day or two and will write a proposal if no significant counter arguments arise. -Matthew > > Hooman
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
