hlovatt
(Howard Lovatt)
1
Hi All,
Anyone know what is going on here:
//: Closure picks up static type not dynamic
class MutableReference<T> {
init() {
guard type(of: self) != MutableReference.self else {
fatalError("MutableReference is an abstract class; create a
derrivative of MutableReference")
}
}
var value: T {
get {
fatalError("Calculated property value getter should be
overridden")
}
set {
fatalError("Calculated property value setter should be
overridden")
}
}
}
class DefaultMutableReference<T>: MutableReference<T> {
private var _value: T
override var value: T {
get {
return _value
}
set {
_value = newValue
}
}
init(_ value: T) {
_value = value
}
}
let e: (MutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = { $0.value.append($1) }
let dmr = DefaultMutableReference([2])
dmr.value // [2]
e(dmr, 2) // fatal error: Calculated property value getter should be
overridden
dmr.value // Expect [2, 2]
If I change `e` to:
let e: (DefaultMutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = {
$0.value.append($1) }
It works fine.
IE the closure is using the static type of its first argument and not
dynamically dispatching.
Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way round where I can still use the
base class for `e`?
Thanks for any help in advance,
-- Howard.
jrose
(Jordan Rose)
2
Seems like a bug, and moreover it seems like a regression from Swift 3.0. Mind filing a report at bugs.swift.org <Issues · apple/swift · GitHub?
Thanks!
Jordan
···
On Feb 1, 2017, at 20:49, Howard Lovatt via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Hi All,
Anyone know what is going on here:
//: Closure picks up static type not dynamic
class MutableReference<T> {
init() {
guard type(of: self) != MutableReference.self else {
fatalError("MutableReference is an abstract class; create a derrivative of MutableReference")
}
}
var value: T {
get {
fatalError("Calculated property value getter should be overridden")
}
set {
fatalError("Calculated property value setter should be overridden")
}
}
}
class DefaultMutableReference<T>: MutableReference<T> {
private var _value: T
override var value: T {
get {
return _value
}
set {
_value = newValue
}
}
init(_ value: T) {
_value = value
}
}
let e: (MutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = { $0.value.append($1) }
let dmr = DefaultMutableReference([2])
dmr.value // [2]
e(dmr, 2) // fatal error: Calculated property value getter should be overridden
dmr.value // Expect [2, 2]
If I change `e` to:
let e: (DefaultMutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = { $0.value.append($1) }
It works fine.
IE the closure is using the static type of its first argument and not dynamically dispatching.
Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way round where I can still use the base class for `e`?
Thanks for any help in advance,
-- Howard.
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
The problem is were not marking the materializeForSet accessor in DefaultMutableReference.value as an override. Definitely a bug:
sil_vtable DefaultMutableReference {
#MutableReference.init!initializer.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferencecfT_GS0_x_ // DefaultMutableReference.init() -> DefaultMutableReference<A>
#MutableReference.value!getter.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferenceg5valuex // DefaultMutableReference.value.getter
#MutableReference.value!setter.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferences5valuex // DefaultMutableReference.value.setter
#MutableReference.value!materializeForSet.1: _TFC1d16MutableReferencem5valuex // MutableReference.value.materializeForSet
#DefaultMutableReference.value!materializeForSet.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferencem5valuex // DefaultMutableReference.value.materializeForSet
The last entry should not exist.
I’ll have a fix shortly.
Slava
···
On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Seems like a bug, and moreover it seems like a regression from Swift 3.0. Mind filing a report at bugs.swift.org <Issues · apple/swift · GitHub?
Thanks!
Jordan
On Feb 1, 2017, at 20:49, Howard Lovatt via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org <mailto:swift-users@swift.org>> wrote:
Hi All,
Anyone know what is going on here:
//: Closure picks up static type not dynamic
class MutableReference<T> {
init() {
guard type(of: self) != MutableReference.self else {
fatalError("MutableReference is an abstract class; create a derrivative of MutableReference")
}
}
var value: T {
get {
fatalError("Calculated property value getter should be overridden")
}
set {
fatalError("Calculated property value setter should be overridden")
}
}
}
class DefaultMutableReference<T>: MutableReference<T> {
private var _value: T
override var value: T {
get {
return _value
}
set {
_value = newValue
}
}
init(_ value: T) {
_value = value
}
}
let e: (MutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = { $0.value.append($1) }
let dmr = DefaultMutableReference([2])
dmr.value // [2]
e(dmr, 2) // fatal error: Calculated property value getter should be overridden
dmr.value // Expect [2, 2]
If I change `e` to:
let e: (DefaultMutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = { $0.value.append($1) }
It works fine.
IE the closure is using the static type of its first argument and not dynamically dispatching.
Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way round where I can still use the base class for `e`?
Thanks for any help in advance,
-- Howard.
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org <mailto:swift-users@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
hlovatt
(Howard Lovatt)
4
Thanks for your prompt responses.
Have filed a bug:
SR-3840 - Closure picks up static type not dynamic
<Issues · apple/swift-issues · GitHub;
-- Howard.
···
On 3 February 2017 at 08:57, Slava Pestov <spestov@apple.com> wrote:
The problem is were not marking the materializeForSet accessor
in DefaultMutableReference.value as an override. Definitely a bug:
sil_vtable DefaultMutableReference {
#MutableReference.init!initializer.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferencecfT_GS0_x_
// DefaultMutableReference.init() -> DefaultMutableReference<A>
#MutableReference.value!getter.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferenceg5valuex
// DefaultMutableReference.value.getter
#MutableReference.value!setter.1: _TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferences5valuex
// DefaultMutableReference.value.setter
#MutableReference.value!materializeForSet.1: _
TFC1d16MutableReferencem5valuex // MutableReference.value.
materializeForSet
#DefaultMutableReference.value!materializeForSet.1: _
TFC1d23DefaultMutableReferencem5valuex // DefaultMutableReference.value.
materializeForSet
The last entry should not exist.
I’ll have a fix shortly.
Slava
On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-users < > swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Seems like a bug, and moreover it seems like a regression from Swift 3.0.
Mind filing a report at bugs.swift.org?
Thanks!
Jordan
On Feb 1, 2017, at 20:49, Howard Lovatt via swift-users < > swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Hi All,
Anyone know what is going on here:
//: Closure picks up static type not dynamic
class MutableReference<T> {
init() {
guard type(of: self) != MutableReference.self else {
fatalError("MutableReference is an abstract class; create
a derrivative of MutableReference")
}
}
var value: T {
get {
fatalError("Calculated property value getter should be
overridden")
}
set {
fatalError("Calculated property value setter should be
overridden")
}
}
}
class DefaultMutableReference<T>: MutableReference<T> {
private var _value: T
override var value: T {
get {
return _value
}
set {
_value = newValue
}
}
init(_ value: T) {
_value = value
}
}
let e: (MutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = { $0.value.append($1) }
let dmr = DefaultMutableReference([2])
dmr.value // [2]
e(dmr, 2) // fatal error: Calculated property value getter should be
overridden
dmr.value // Expect [2, 2]
If I change `e` to:
let e: (DefaultMutableReference<[Int]>, Int) -> Void = {
$0.value.append($1) }
It works fine.
IE the closure is using the static type of its first argument and not
dynamically dispatching.
Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way round where I can still use the
base class for `e`?
Thanks for any help in advance,
-- Howard.
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users