[swift-evolution] Compiler should generate code base on the functions that have default values

[Andrew Bennett]

Similar has been discussed in the topic: "two protocols with the same
method name", it starts here:

https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160104/005673.html

Here's another solution you may not have considered:

struct Foo:A {

    func printSomething(something:String = "some thing") {

        print(something)

    }


    @implements(A.printSomething)

    private func _printSomething() { self.printSomething() }

}


This was derived from the message by Joe Groff, in the linked thread:

> Swift's protocol conformance model doesn't rely on the name of the member
matching the name of the requirement it satisfies. One possibility here is
to introduce an attribute to explicitly declare what protocol
requirement(s) a member is intended to satisfy:
>
> class X: A, B {
>   @implements(A.ring)
>   var weddingRing: String
>
>   @implements(B.ring)
>   var ringtone: String
> }
>



On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:19 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> I agree with 肇鑫. Your issue and his seem like two separate issues, and I’d
> also like to see his issue implemented. For example, imagine I wanted to
> define this protocol:
>
> protocol Logger {
>     func print()
>     func print(message: String)
>     func print(path: String)
>     func print(line: Int)
>     func print(message: String, path: String)
>     func print(message: String, line: Int)
>     func print(path: String, line: Int)
>     func print(message: String, path: String, line: Int)
> }
>
> It would be much simpler if I could more simply write:
>
> protocol Logger {
>     func print(message: String = default, path: String = default, line:
> Int = default)
> }
>
> Which is a separate issue then what you propose which would allow the same
> as the following for *init* as well:
>
> protocol Logger {
>     func print(message: String)
> }
>
> class NSLogger {
>     func print(message: String, path: String, line: Int) {
>         // ...
>     }
> }
>
> extension NSLogger: Logger {
>     conformance {
>         print(message)
>     }
> }
>
> On 17 Jan 2016, at 18:09, 肇鑫 via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> It is not to *conform to the same function name but with  different
> signatures*. It is the protocol limits in current Swift. You can
> implement a protocol function with default values. But the protocol can't
> call the function with the default value. So you have to add another
> function that has no argument in the protocol and change the implementation.
>
> current code:
>
> protocol A {
>     func printSomething(something:String)
> }
>
> struct Foo:A {
>     func printSomething(something:String = "some thing") {
>         print(something)
>     }
> }
>
> Foo().printSomething() // some thing
> (Foo() as A).printSomething() // Missing argument for parameter #1 in call
>
> default value part is widely discussed in this thread
> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160111/006798.html>,
> including other approaches like protocol extension.
>
> zhaoxin
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:52 AM, J. Cheyo Jimenez <cheyo at masters3d.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is very interesting. The first case seems like a bug because the
>> compiler should not let you define that function().
>>
>> Do you have any actual examples when you would need to conform to the
>> same function name but with different signatures?
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016, 肇鑫 via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This proposal is the summary of the previous protocol function default
>>> value proposal and some of my new thinkings all together.
>>>
>>> Currently the compiler doesn't stop you defining two functions like:
>>>
>>> func printSomething(something:String = "some thing") {
>>>     print(something)
>>> }
>>>
>>> func printSomething() {
>>>     print("some thing!")
>>> }
>>>
>>> However, when you call it, an error arises.
>>>
>>> printSomething() // Ambiguous use of 'printSomething'
>>>
>>> You may say just remove the function that has no argument. But protocol
>>> needs it.
>>>
>>> protocol A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String)
>>>     func printSomething()
>>> }
>>>
>>> struct Foo:A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String) {
>>>         print(something)
>>>     }
>>>
>>>
>>>     func printSomething() {
>>>         self.printSomething("some thing")
>>>     }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> If you do't define the no-argument function in protocol A. You can not
>>> use the function by (Foo() as A).printSomething().
>>>
>>>
>>> As we all know, a function with default values, can rewrite to two or
>>> more equivalent functions. For example,
>>>
>>> struct Bar {
>>>     func add(int1:Int = 1, int2:Int = 2, int3:Int = 3) {
>>>         print(int1 + int2 + int3)
>>>     }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> is equivalent to
>>>
>>> struct Bar {
>>>     func add(int1:Int, int2:Int, int3:Int) {
>>>         print(int1 + int2 + int3)
>>>     }
>>>
>>>
>>>     func add() {
>>>         self.add(1, int2: 2, int3: 3)
>>>     }
>>>
>>>
>>>     func add(int1:Int) {
>>>         self.add(int1, int2: 2, int3: 3)
>>>     }
>>>
>>>
>>>     func add(int1:Int, int2:Int) {
>>>         self.add(int1, int2: int2, int3: 3)
>>>     }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> So my proposal is let compiler or pre-compiler to generate the code
>>> internally, without changing the original code,  base on the functions that
>>> have default values.
>>>
>>> Then we need not to define multiple functions in a protocol when we need
>>> function with default values.
>>>
>>> new code:
>>>
>>> protocol A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String)
>>> }
>>>
>>> struct Foo:A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String = "some thing") {
>>>         print(something)
>>>     }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> If we don't want to change our previous code, we may also need to
>>> introduce another keyword defaultValue. This keyword is used only in a
>>> protocol to restrict if a function's argument can have a default value. If
>>> a function use it, but the implementation doesn't give a default value, or
>>> vice versa, an error arises.
>>>
>>> new code:
>>>
>>> protocol A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String = defaultValue)
>>> }
>>>
>>> struct Foo:A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String = "some thing") {
>>>         print(something)
>>>     }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> This keyword is useful. With it, you can still use Swift in old way.
>>> Which means you need not to change code like below if you don't want to.
>>>
>>> old code:
>>>
>>> protocol A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String)
>>>     func printSomething()
>>> }
>>>
>>> struct Foo:A {
>>>     func printSomething(something:String) {
>>>         print(something)
>>>     }
>>>
>>>
>>>     func printSomething() {
>>>         self.printSomething("some thing")
>>>     }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> But if you want to write new code. You can just write it in the new
>>> way, enjoining the simpler and clearer.
>>>
>>> zhaoxin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160118/b89d0158/attachment.html>