On 11.05.2016 17:42, Matthew Johnson wrote:
You are describing the behavior of Self, not #Self.
Well.. Yes :-) I.e. I wanted to show that `->#Self` requirement in
protocol(from my point of view) will produce issues just like `->Self`
#Self expands to the static type of the code it is declared
within. In value types, this is always the same as Self. In reference
types, it refers to the *declaring* type.
For implementations of protocol requirements the declaring type is the type
that declares conformance.
Self is covariant, #Self (or Type) is invariant. That is the difference.
There is some misunderstanding between us.
Most likely this is because of my terrible English. (Btw, sorry for this)
I just can't understand, how do you understand the `A` protocol conformance
for F & G classes in my examples?
In your word, with implemented #Self, F & G `is A` ? If so, how exactly
they conform to protocol that says F & G *must* have `f` that returns
#Self. What is #Self for F & G classes that should be returned in f()?
Right now I think that your idea just can not be implemented at all based
on *initial* #Self proposal.
Probably you(we) need another proposal, like BaseSelf (or SuperSelf) that
means "this class or any its base class", then I understand how such a
`f()->BaseSelf` protocol requirement can be applied to E class and also be
true for F&G classes (as f() inherited from base class will return instance
of E which is base for both).
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
