I think if you can figure that out, you’re halfway to letting protocols conform
to themselves.
(Syntactically, I would probably say that something like “Codable.Self” would
read well, but I think that already means something. Maybe the answer will
become clearer when we rework the reflection APIs?)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 13:13, Itai Ferber <ifer...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Even then, that wouldn’t necessarily help in the general case. If you decode
> {"key" : 1} as [String : Codable], what concrete type would 1 have? Int?
> Double? Int8? (Arguments can be made for any one of these, but the key here
> is that it is inherently ambiguous and there isn’t necessarily a good answer.)
>
> On 19 Oct 2017, at 12:57, David Sweeris wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 12:50 PM, David Baraff via swift-users
> <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Yes; this is a case where anywhere in the code base I want to just say
> struct MyNewType : Codable {
> // add codable datatypes
> }
>
> and don’t want/can’t always go to the centralized place to add it in.
> Is there some extension-like trick I can pull off that lets me spread the
> implementation out over different files/libraries?
>
> Ah, ok.
>
> No, I don't think you'll be able to do that until/unless Swift gets more
> macro/metaprogramming features. Maybe if protocols ever get to conform to
> themselves? That's a common request, but implementing it is apparently beyond
> tricky. I'm pretty sure somebody's working on it, but "bigger fish" and all
> that...
>
> - Dave Sweeris
>
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
