[swift-evolution] [RFC] #Self
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Tue May 10 17:46:17 CDT 2016
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Hooman Mehr via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On May 10, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> That said, I’m not sure I understand the concrete use-cases. When is this
> concept important? When is “Self” not good enough?
> The only case where there is new functionality is when this is used in a
> protocol requirement. I gave an example earlier today.
> This functionality is the key: Ability of an open (non-final) class to
> conform to a protocol that lets it return an instance of the conforming
> type (itself). Self does not work for that and we can’t change its behavior
> (or can we?) So one solution seems to be Matt’s proposal. This
> functionality is important for me and an example use case is class
> clusters. For the client code it is sealed and acts just like a final
> class, but internally it may return a subclass that is an implementation
> detail. We should be able to do this.
Help me understand this. Maybe an example will help. Why is it a problem to
return the subclass instead of the base class?
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution