Thank you for your answer Joe, you are right the equal(to:) wasn't a valid override, but even after using the one you've proposed, the behavior is not the expected one
let a = Subclass(foo: 1, bar: 1) let b = Subclass(foo: 1, bar: 2) (a == b) != (a != b) // Prints true let x = SubclassWithDifferentOperator(foo: 1, bar: 1) let y = SubclassWithDifferentOperator(foo: 1, bar: 2) (x == y) != (x != y) // Prints false As you can see above if a subclass does not implement the global function !=, the equal operation seems to be broken. --- Fran Fernandez On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2017, at 2:59 AM, Francisco Javier Fernández Toro via > swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've found that when you have a class hierarchy which implements > Equatable, if you want to have the != operator working as expected, you > need to override it, it's not enough with ==. > > > > If you don't define you own subclass != operator, Swift compiler will > use the super class to resolve that operation. > > > > Is there any reason for that? > > The `equal(to:)` method inside `Subclass` is not a valid override of > `Superclass` because its argument only accepts `Subclass` instances, but > the parent method needs to work with all `Superclass` instances. If you > write it as an override, it should work: > > class Subclass: Superclass { > let bar: Int > init(foo: Int, bar: Int) { > self.bar = bar > super.init(foo: foo) > } > > override func equal(to: Superclass) -> Bool { > if let toSub = to as? Subclass { > return bar == toSub.bar && super.equal(to: to) > } > return false > } > } > > We should probably raise an error, or at least a warning, instead of > silently accepting your code as an overload. Would you be able to file a > bug on bugs.swift.org about that? > > -Joe
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
