When you call foo<A : P>(_: A) with a concrete type C, the type checker
performs a conformance check of C to P. If C is a protocol type, the
conformance check fails. Ie, unlike the subtype relation (roughly, “I can
assign a value of this type to that”), the conformance relation (“I can
substitute this for a generic parameter conforming to”) is not reflexive.
Swift compiles generic code in a way where values of generic type have the most
efficient representation in memory — you pay a CPU cost because they’re still
manipulated indirectly (unlike C++ templates, which are cloned and inlined at
compile time), but there’s no representational cost as in Java’s erased
generics for example.
What this means is that all types that you can substitute for a generic
parameter have to be interchangeable in some basic sense.
The main problem is with class-bound protocols:
protocol CP : class {
func foo()
func bar()
}
And a function taking an array of CP’s:
func foo<T : CP>(t: [T]) {}
All concrete types that conform to a class-bound protocol have a single
retainable-pointer representation, so the function takes an array of pointers.
However, a value of protocol type ‘CP’ is represented as the underlying
concrete value — a pointer to a class instance conforming to CP — together with
the conformance table that stores the function pointers for the implementations
of ‘foo’ and ‘bar’.
So unlike in Java, where method implementations for an interface are stored
“inside” the instance, in Swift protocol requirement implementations are always
passed ‘on the side’.
With opaque protocols, a type parameter has variable size, so there’s no
representational issue. Instead you just get a double indirection.
Say you have
protocol P {}
func foo<T : P>(t: [T]) {}
If you call foo with the substitution P := P, then you’re passing in an array
of values *where each value has its own conformance to P*. But foo() itself
wants the conformance P : P. So when you call a protocol requirement on an
element of ’t’. you will first call a method in the ‘dummy’ conformance P : P,
which will unpack the “real” concrete type from the value of type P and call
the right method on that.
So we could implement self-conformance for non-class-bound protocols. For
class-bound protocols, I’m not sure how to do it efficiently.
Slava
> On Dec 30, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Mikhail Seriukov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So as the foo<A:P>(_ x:A) function is generic, when we call foo(x) compiler
> needs to determine what type is A to be able to create concrete function. But
> x defined as let x = X() as P so we only know about it that it conforms to P
> but not its real type to put instead of A. Right?
> But where is the "Protocols do not conform to themselves" limitation is
> coming out?
>
> 2016-12-30 18:25 GMT+07:00 Rien <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>
> > On 30 Dec 2016, at 12:14, Mikhail Seriukov via swift-users
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > Ok,
> > But I think I still do not get it.
> > What does really happen when we write this?
> >> let x = X() as P
> >>
>
> 'X()' creates a value.
> 'as P’ constrains the value such that the only things we know about it is
> that the value will conform to the protocol P
> ‘let x =‘ assigns the value to a constant, and the only thing we know about
> that constant is that we can call an operation of protocol P on it.
>
> Rien.
>
> > As I said, I expect x to be Any<P> after that. If it is, then it should be
> > ok IMO.
> > But if it is not then what is the actual type of x?
> >
> > So the real question is how the type checker works here?
> >
> >
> > 2016-12-25 22:13 GMT+07:00 Slava Pestov <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> >
> >> On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-users
> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The following variation works:
> >>
> >> protocol P {}
> >>
> >> class P1:P {}
> >>
> >> class X:P1 {}
> >>
> >> func foo<A:P>(_ x:A) {}
> >>
> >> func bar() {
> >> //let x = X() // this compiles
> >> let x = X() as P1 // this does not compile. Why?
> >> foo(x)
> >> }
> >>
> >> Which adds credence to the bug theory.
> >
> > It’s an intentional limitation. Protocols do not conform to themselves.
> > Lifting the restriction would be difficult to do efficiently given our
> > representation of generics and protocols at runtime.
> >
> > Slava
> >
> >>
> >> Note two changes: 1. two levels of inheritance and 2. change to classes.
> >> If you do two levels using protocols it doesn't work if you use either
> >> classes or structs.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Howard.
> >>
> >> On 23 December 2016 at 07:29, Kevin Nattinger <[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >> I recall seeing a request on the -evolution list for something like `T :=
> >> X` to indicate it could be X itself or anything inheriting / implementing
> >> it, so it’s certainly known behavior, if not desired. IMO it’s a bug and
> >> `:` should be fixed to include the root type, whether or not that requires
> >> a discussion on -evolution.
> >>
> >>> On Dec 22, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-users
> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I suspect a compiler bug since A is a P. The equivalent in Java works:
> >>>
> >>> interface P {}
> >>> class X implements P {}
> >>>
> >>> <A extends P> void foo(A x) {}
> >>>
> >>> void bar() {
> >>> final P x = new X();
> >>> foo(x);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -- Howard.
> >>>
> >>> On 23 Dec 2016, at 3:19 am, Rien via swift-users <[email protected]
> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> IMO the error message says it all:
> >>>>
> >>>> Playground execution failed: error: MyPlayground8.playground:9:5: error:
> >>>> cannot invoke 'foo' with an argument list of type '(P)'
> >>>> foo(x)
> >>>> ^
> >>>>
> >>>> MyPlayground8.playground:9:5: note: expected an argument list of type
> >>>> '(A)'
> >>>> foo(x)
> >>>> ^
> >>>>
> >>>> I.e. you are passing in a protocol while the function is specified for a
> >>>> type.
> >>>> Said other way: On which data do you expect the protocol to operate?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Rien
> >>>>
> >>>> Site: http://balancingrock.nl <http://balancingrock.nl/>
> >>>> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com <http://swiftrien.blogspot.com/>
> >>>> Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien <http://github.com/Swiftrien>
> >>>> Project: http://swiftfire.nl <http://swiftfire.nl/>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 22 Dec 2016, at 17:05, Mikhail Seriukov via swift-users
> >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hello community! I' wondering if somebody can explain this to me.
> >>>>> Please take look at the snippet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> protocol P {}
> >>>>> struct X:P {}
> >>>>>
> >>>>> func foo<A:P>(_ x:A) {}
> >>>>>
> >>>>> func bar() {
> >>>>> //let x = X() // this compiles
> >>>>> let x = X() as P // this does not compile. Why?
> >>>>> foo(x)
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I expect the both cases to work though. But only first works? And I do
> >>>>> not understand why.
> >>>>> My coworkers said that it is a compiler bug, but I'm not shure it is.
> >>>>> Thanks for the help.
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> swift-users mailing list
> >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
> >>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> swift-users mailing list
> >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
> >>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> swift-users mailing list
> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
> >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> swift-users mailing list
> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
> >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > swift-users mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
> > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
