Tony, could you, please, share your approaches? Maybe it will open the door to finding an easy solution to the issue.
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 at 10:02 Tony Allevato <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:31 PM Daniel Leping via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Braeden, a good point as for inheritance. Totally agree here. > > Though the generic factory problem remains. Maybe it could be solved > differently? Any ideas? > > > As a matter of fact, I've used a different approach in some of my own > projects that has ended up working out well. > > > > The only thing that pops up in mind right now is to have some "compiler > magic" that deals with the constraints. Maybe a concrete class can fall > into the category (be DefaultConstructable). > > Anyways, my point is that compile time constraints for a type that can be > created with a default constructor are important for certain patterns. I'm > not saying the protocol is the right or the only way, but I want to find a > solution. > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 at 5:22 Braeden Profile via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I’m gonna do my best to explain my thoughts on this, as I just spent an > hour reading the whole thread………… > > I’m -1 on adding the protocol DefaultConstructible to the standard library > (especially under that name). It doesn’t explain its semantics > effectively. I agree that a protocol should have definite semantics that > are hopefully explained by the name. This protocol fails that test—a > default instance of value types is completely context-specific, and default > class instances are just iffy to me. > > I’m firmly in the camp that you could create a protocol like this for your > own project and apply it to the types you think semantically fit the > purpose… > protocol ZeroConstructible { init() } > extension Int: ZeroConstructible { } > …but I wouldn’t do this myself, as there are too many use-cases with too > many definitions of “default”. What if I wanted Int to conform to > multiple? It only can have one init(). I’d do something like this… > protocol ZeroConstructible { static func constructZero() } > protocol UnsafeConstructible { static func constructUnsafe() } > protocol FactoryConstructible { static func constructDefault() } // I’ve > never needed to use a factory, myself... > …and create those new functions when I conform my types to it. It’s > cumbersome, but correct. As of yet, I’ve never needed to do such a thing, > and nearly all the use-cases brought up in the thread can be solved with > something of the like. > > Every “default" is context-dependant. > > > Addressing other parts of the thread: > > > - I read a new name suggested for the protocol: “Identity”. > Unfortunately, I associate that with the proposed protocol HasIdentity { > func === }, not a mathematical identity. > - DefaultConstructible could never be a normal protocol that magically > gets applied where init() exists. protocol required inits are just > that—`required`. If a superclass conforms to DefaultConstructible, every > subclass must, too! This would give most every class tree the infinite > chain of `init()` that NSObject suffers from. > - AnyObject was used to justify compiler magic that could be applied > for DefaultConstructible. I disagree that this is appropriate, as > AnyObject most certainly implies semantics. Every AnyObject is a class, > with reference semantics, unsafe-weak-strong references, and more. I could > not see definite semantics evolve for DefaultConstructible throughout the > whole discussion. > > > That’s my two cents. Granted, no one would be hurt by its addition except > those who try to understand this protocol, but I want to avoid that chaos. > > > _______________________________________________ > > swift-evolution mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > swift-evolution mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
