[swift-evolution] [RFC] #Self
svabox at gmail.com
Wed May 11 10:43:18 CDT 2016
On 11.05.2016 17:42, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> You are describing the behavior of Self, not #Self.
Well.. Yes :-) I.e. I wanted to show that `->#Self` requirement in
protocol(from my point of view) will produce issues just like `->Self`
>> #Self expands to the static type of the code it is declared
>> within. In value types, this is always the same as Self. In reference
>> types, it refers to the *declaring* type.
> For implementations of protocol requirements the declaring type is the type
> that declares conformance.
> Self is covariant, #Self (or Type) is invariant. That is the difference.
There is some misunderstanding between us.
Most likely this is because of my terrible English. (Btw, sorry for this)
I just can't understand, how do you understand the `A` protocol conformance
for F & G classes in my examples?
In your word, with implemented #Self, F & G `is A` ? If so, how exactly
they conform to protocol that says F & G *must* have `f` that returns
#Self. What is #Self for F & G classes that should be returned in f()?
Right now I think that your idea just can not be implemented at all based
on *initial* #Self proposal.
Probably you(we) need another proposal, like BaseSelf (or SuperSelf) that
means "this class or any its base class", then I understand how such a
`f()->BaseSelf` protocol requirement can be applied to E class and also be
true for F&G classes (as f() inherited from base class will return instance
of E which is base for both).
More information about the swift-evolution