Unusual Case of Generic Type-Inference

In the code, below, it appears that the compiler is inferring C() of C().id to be of type C<Int>. Without the id member attached, it fails to make the inference, and generates an error.

Is there a valid basis for the compiler to draw that inference? What is it about the id member that causes the compiler to make this inference?

Or, is this a bug?

protocol P { var id: String { get } } // (r1)
extension P { var id: String { "P" } } // (i1)

protocol Q: P {}
extension Q { var id: String { "Q" } }

class C<T>: P {
  var id: String { "C" }
}
extension C: Q where T == Int {}

print(C<String>().id) // "C"
print(C<Int>().id) // "C"
print(C().id) // "Q"  --   How does this compile?  It is inferred that T is Int?
// print(C()) // Error: Generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred

Also, note that C().id accesses the implementation of id provided by Q, rather than the implementation provided by C. I'm guessing that behavior is a by-product of whatever is happening, here, with generic type inference.

2 Likes

This is new to me. I do not know what is happening.

Playing around with it a bit, here’s what I observe in Swift 5.1.3 (in Xcode 11.3.1):

print((C() as C).id)           // "Q"
print((C() as C<Int>).id)      // "C"
print((C() as Q).id)           // "C"
print((C() as C & Q).id)       // Compiler crash
print((C() as C<Int> & Q).id)  // "C"

let a = C() as C           // Error
let b = C() as C<Int>      // Success, and b.id is "C"
let c = C() as Q           // Success, and c.id is "C"
let d = C() as C & Q       // Success, and d.id is "C"
let e = C() as C<Int> & Q  // Success, and e.id is "C"

Repeating the last block with “let a: T” style type annotations instead of “as T” gives the same results.

I don’t know what type inference is doing, because I can’t find a type with the matching behavior.

Hi Nevin,

Writing C().id was a typo, and I was surprised by the result when it actually worked.

If one adds a print(type(of: self)) into the Q.id implementation, it prints "Q”. At least that part makes sense.

This feels to me like it relates to the strange class-related behavior you discussed at Need Help Understanding Protocols and Generics.

I’d love to trace through how the compiler is analyzing this one. Unfortunately, I’m not currently setup to debug the compiler, and the overhead in getting setup is no fun.

--Matt

…but “(C() as Q).id” is “C”, so it does not make sense.

Exactly. It must be a bug. I suspect something is amiss in the confluence of the code that resolves overloads and the code that infers generic types.

The bigger question is, in what other subtle ways might this bug be manifesting itself. And, that is why I suggest this issue may be worthy of investigation.

Any volunteers to trace it through the compiler?

…wait, I do not replicate this:

extension Q {
  var id: String {
    print(type(of: self))
    return "Q"
  }
}

// ...

print(C().id)  // C<Int>; Q

Sorry. That was a typo. Concur with output. “C” followed by “Q”.

Indeed, even with this function:

func staticType<T>(of: T) -> Any.Type { T.self }

Calling it on self inside of Q.id still produces “C<Int>” from the line “C().id”.

https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-10158
Not sure if related, only skimmed this thread.
Here is another place where I though it might be relevant.

Ok! Good find/recollection.

The bug report was closed, with the explanation that this is correct behavior.

Jordan Rose added a comment - 25 Mar 2019 8:58 AM

I think this is correct behavior; otherwise we wouldn't be able to provide default implementations in the standard library that include a default associated type, and that's important for protocols that have associated types that are mostly just implementation details. cc Ben Cohen, Karoy Lorentey

Ben Cohen added a comment - 25 Mar 2019 9:16 AM

Right – this is the correct current behavior and is used to provide functionality for types like Collection. Changes to it would need to be evolution pitches rather than jiras.

Hmm. Need to understand the semantics behind this mechanism.

FWIW: I tried (briefly) but failed.

The associated type inference is pretty straightforward. The compiler considers all possibilities, and if it finds any that are valid then it ranks them and chooses the best (or balks when there’s ambiguity).

That does not explain the behavior from the example at the top of this thread. Specifically, it does not explain why C().id prints “Q” even though the inferred type C<Int> would print “C”.

After going back ... and re-reading threads about the inference aspect of it, from last year, ... I feel like I'm stuck in an endless loop.

But, yes, you are correct. We should not lose sight of the inconsistent dispatch behavior which appears to be more of a protocol-dispatching issue. Bug report?

Not sure if it's interesting or not to note that in Xcode, if positioning the cursor on the "id" of this line:

then the id in the extension to Q will be highlighted.

While if positioning the cursor on the "id" of eg this line:

func foo<X: Q>(_ v: X) { print(v.id) }

it will highlight the id of the requirement definition in protocol P.

And also:

print((C() as C<Int>).id) // C
print((C() as C).id) // Q

Should that last line even compile, ie is it ok to say "… as C" with an, I guess, inferred type parameter?

Of course--why would type inference be permitted elsewhere but specifically not there?

Right, I just slipped back into being surprised (even though I know it's not surprising), ie the same as this:

Sorry for the noise. I'll repeat the latest relevant questions of the thread here:

Yes, I think this is worthy of at least 2 separate bug reports:

  • The original example printing “Q” is a bug.
  • (C() as C & Q).id” crashing the compiler is a distinct bug, especially since when split over 2 lines it does not crash (eg. “let x = C() as C & Q; x.id”).

(C() as C & Q).id compiles and prints C with Xcode 11.5, Swift 5.2.4 (I see above that you observed the crash in Xcode 11.3.1).

Good to know, thanks. Guess that one’s solved.

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Cookie Policy