[swift-evolution] [PROPOSAL]Return subclass type to a protocol where a superclass is defined without the need for associatedtype

[Yogev Sitton]

I’m actually not sure what the next step is.
What is the official way to submit the proposal for the Swift team to consider?


> > Le 18 avr. 2016 à 12:01, Yogev Sitton<yogev.sitton at gmail.com>a écrit :
> > 
> > I’m referring you to Ross O’Brien’s post:
> > As of Swift 2.2, if a variable has a closure type of e.g. () ->Shape, a closure of type () ->Circle would be considered a match. If a class implements 'func make() ->Shape', a subclass implementing 'func make() ->Circle' has to override. However, if a protocol requires a 'func make() ->Shape', a type implementing 'func make() ->Circle' isn't considered to be conforming. That does seem strange.
> > 
> > Protocols behaves differently than closures and classes and I think they should behave the same.
> All right, I get it.
> 
> Shape, as a return type, is "trampoline" data that wraps any Shape value, when Circle is just a Circle. That's why the two functions () ->Shape? and () ->Circle? don't match today.
> 
> But maybe they will eventually, thanks to your request!
> 
> Gwendal
> 
> 
> 
>