[swift-users] Possible swift 3 method rewrite issue with NSRequestConcreteImplementation ?

[Tony Parker]

I thought of the exact same name, but I'm not enthusiastic about the inconsistency this creates with all of the other decode methods on NSCoder. I'm discussing with a few people to decide what to do next. 

- Tony

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <brent at architechies.com> wrote:
> 
> You could just do the one and call it encodeCInt. I think people would understand that it's different because it's using a sort-of-foreign type. 
> 
> -- 
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Tony Parker <anthony.parker at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Thanks for filing the bug.
>> 
>> The root cause of the issue is that the importer would turn the following methods into the same name:
>> 
>> - (void)encodeInt:(int)x forKey:(NSString *)k;
>> - (void)encodeInt32:(uint32_t)x forKey:(NSString *)k;
>> 
>> Plus, there is the added confusion that this method:
>> 
>> - (void)encodeInteger:(NSInteger)x forKey:(NSString *)k;
>> 
>> is imported into Swift like this:
>> 
>> func encode(_ x: Int, forKey k : String)
>> 
>> where, as you can see, “Int” means “NSInteger”, but not the C “int”.
>> 
>> I’m not really sure how to resolve this and still allow for subclassing without simply reverting these names back to Swift 2.2 style, so I think that’s probably what I’ll have to do:
>> 
>> func encodeInt(_ x : Int32, forKey k : String)
>> func encodeInt32(_ x : Int32, forKey k : String)
>> func encodeInt64(_ x : Int64, forKey k : String)
>> func encodeInteger(_ x : Int, forKey k : String)
>> 
>> and so on, for all of the encode methods, so they are consistent.
>> 
>> - Tony
>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:20 AM, John Spurlock <john.spurlock at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok, filed a new bug for the encodeInt:forKey issue:  rdar://problem/27425997
>>> 
>>> Ensured it reproduces in xcode beta 3, swift version 3.0 (swiftlang-800.0.34.6 clang-800.0.33)
>>> 
>>> Is there anything I can do in the meantime as a swift-only workaround to fix my custom NSCoder?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> - john
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Tony Parker <anthony.parker at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> We renamed some of these methods for Swift 3 in an attempt to remove some of the confusion surrounding which of these did what - they were really named for C types and not Swift ones.
>>>> 
>>>> encodeInt:forKey: and decodeInt:forKey: are the two missing ones, since they were easily confused with the Swift Int type. I think we’ll have to figure out a different approach here. John, please file a bug at bugreport.apple.com and let me know the radar number, and we’ll look into it.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Tony
>>>> 
>>>> > On Jul 18, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <brent at architechies.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hi Tony - when I add that attribute, I get an error at compile-time:
>>>> >> Objective-C method has a different selector from the method it overrides ('encodeInt:forKey:' vs. 'encodeInteger:forKey:')
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If I update to encodeInteger:forKey as the fix describes, it compiles, but I'm getting the same original problem at runtime.  i.e. "encodeInt:forKey: only defined for abstract class"
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Any other ideas?  See the same thing over there?  You should be able to paste that into a new swift 3 test.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you look at the NSCoder documentation, you'll see 25 methods in the Swift version of the "Encoding General Data" section, and 27 (non-deprecated) in the Objective-C version. `-encodeInt:forKey:` has no Swift equivalent. I'm not sure what the other missing method is.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think this is probably a bug or design oversight, and I'd recommend you file a radar against Foundation. If this is a primitive method for NSCoding, it needs to be accessible from Swift.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Brent Royal-Gordon
>>>> > Architechies
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/attachments/20160719/e1c7d436/attachment.html>