On Jun 23, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
With my proposed change, GenericBox would be resolved as GenericBox<T> in the last example. Right now it fails to type check.
Here is an example that works right now, but would not work with my proposed change:
Basically the meaning of ‘GenericBox’ right now depends on whether it appears inside its own definition or extension thereof, or not. The behavior when it appears elsewhere is more general — we infer the parameters from the surrounding expression, instead of assuming they’re equal to the context parameters.
This is a subtle change — definitely let me know if I’m not explaining it well.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 15:14 Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments
• Proposal: SE-9999
• Author: Slava Pestov
• Status: Awaiting review
• Review manager: TBD
Introduction
This proposal cleans up the semantics of a reference to a generic type when no generic arguments are applied.
Swift-evolution thread: Discussion thread topic for that proposal
Motivation
Right now, we allow a generic type to be referenced with no generic arguments applied in a handful of special cases. The two primary rules here are the following:
• If the scope from which the reference is made is nested inside the definition of the type or an extension thereof, omitting generic arguments just means to implicitly apply the arguments from context.
For example,
struct GenericBox<Contents>
{
let
contents: Contents
// Equivalent to: func clone() -> GenericBox<Contents>
func clone() ->
GenericBox {
return
GenericBox(contents: contents)
}
}
extension
GenericBox {
func print
() {
// Equivalent to: let cloned: GenericBox<Contents>
let cloned: GenericBox =
clone()
print(cloned.
contents)
}
}
• If the type is referenced from an unrelated scope, we attempt to infer the generic parameters.
For example,
func makeABox() -> GenericBox<Int
{
// Equivalent to: GenericBox<Int>(contents: 123)
return GenericBox(contents: 123
)
}
The problem appears when the user expects the second behavior, but instead encounters the first. For example, the following does not type check:
extension
GenericBox {
func transform<T>(f: Contents -> T) ->
GenericBox<T> {
// We resolve 'GenericBox' as 'GenericBox<Contents>', rather than
// inferring the type parameter
return
GenericBox(contents: f(contents))
}
}
Proposed solution
The proposed solution is to remove the first rule altogether. If the generic parameters cannot be inferred from context, they must be specified explicitly with the usual Type<Args...> syntax.
Detailed design
This really just involves removing an existing piece of logic from the type resolver code.
Impact on existing code
This will have a small impact on existing code that uses a pattern similar to the above.
Alternatives considered
Status quo
We could keep the current behavior, but one can argue it is not very useful, and adds a special case where one is not needed.
More complex inference of generic parameters
We could attempt to unify the two rules for resolving a reference to a generic type with no arguments, however this presents theoretical difficulties with our constraint solver design. Even if it were easy to implement, it would increase type checking type by creating new possibilities to consider, with very little actual benefit.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
