[swift-users] Workaround for generics not currently supporting conditional conformance to a protocol

[Howard Lovatt]

Pity nothing else works, looks like I am stuck with multiple wrappers.

I will echo Dave's, Tim's, and Jordan's thoughts, roll on Conditional
Conformance.

Thanks for your help.

  -- Howard.

On 17 November 2016 at 09:35, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 7:35, David Sweeris via swift-users <
> swift-users at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> @Dave,
>
> How do I write that though.
>
> I can't write:
>
>     extension Array: Equatable {
>         static func ==(lhs: Array, rhs: Array) -> Bool {
>             let size = lhs.count
>             precondition(rhs.count == size, "The arrays must be the same
> length")
>             for i in 0 ..< size {
>                 if (lhs[i] as! Equatable) != (rhs[i] as! Equatable) {
>                     return false
>                 }
>             }
>             return true
>         }
>     }
>
> Because I can't cast to an Equatable, because Equatable uses Self.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>  -- Howard.
>
>   -- Howard.
>
> On 16 November 2016 at 16:35, David Sweeris <davesweeris at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Nov 15, 2016, at 21:39, Howard Lovatt via swift-users <
>> swift-users at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > Does anyone have a good workaround for generics not currently
>> supporting conditional conformance to a protocol. As stated in the Generics
>> Manifesto something like this would be nice:
>> >
>> >   extension Array: Equatable where Element: Equatable {
>> >         static func ==(lhs: Array, rhs: Array) -> Bool { ... }
>> >     }
>> >
>> > But I would currently write a wrapper, something like:
>> >
>> >     struct ArrayE<T: Equatable> {
>> >         var elements: [T]
>> >     }
>> >     extension ArrayE: Equatable {
>> >         static func ==(lhs: ArrayE, rhs: ArrayE) -> Bool { ...  }
>> >     }
>> >
>> > This can get unwieldy when there are a lot of conditional protocol
>> extensions required, i.e. wrappers round wrappers.
>> >
>> > Is there a better way?
>> >
>> > Thanks for any tips,
>> >
>> >   -- Howard.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-users mailing list
>> > swift-users at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
>>
>> Can you make Array conform to Equatable for any T and then in the ==
>> function, if T conforms to Equatable loop the Arrays to check if they're
>> equal, and if it doesn't conform just return false?
>>
>> I mean, it's still "wrong", but at least you won't get any false
>> positives.
>>
>> - Dave Sweeris
>
>
>
> You are correct. The work-around is to use two extensions and overload the
> == operator:
>
> extension Array: Equatable {
>     public static func == (lhs: Array, rhs: Array) -> Bool {
>         return false
>     }
> }
> extension Array where Element : Equatable {
>     public static func == (lhs: Array, rhs: Array) -> Bool {
>         return lhs.count == rhs.count && {
>             for i in 0..<lhs.count {
>                 if lhs[i] != rhs[i] {
>                     return false
>                 }
>             }
>             return true
>         }()
>     }
> }
>
> It works in playgrounds (Xcode 8.1 (8B62)), but I haven’t tested it
> outside a few trivial cases.
>
>
> This does not work. The == dispatch for Arrays is static in this case, not
> dynamic. You can test this by writing something generic on Equatable.
>
> func same<T: Equatable>(_ x: T, _ y: T) -> Bool { return x == y }
> print(same([1], [2]))
>
>
> Rule of thumb: overloads are resolved statically, protocol requirements
> are invoked dynamically. You cannot get dynamic behavior out of just
> overloads, ever.
>
> I don't think there's a way to get this behavior today, unfortunately.
>
> Jordan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/attachments/20161117/91aa920e/attachment.html>