Btw,..
On 20.09.2016 18:18, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution wrote:
I think there is a deeper issue that may be worth exploring here.
Notably, when one class presents a member function, its subclasses ought to
use “override” when they reimplement that method themselves, regardless of
where the superclass’s version comes from.
In the original post, the class “A” expresses (by conforming to protocol
“Foo”) that it has a member function “bar()”, and “B” is a subclass of “A”
which wants its own definition of “bar()”.
It seems to me that “B” should not care whether “A” rolled its own
implementation of “bar()” or used the default implementation provided by “Foo”.
From the perspective of “B”, its superclass “A” promises to have a member
function “bar()”, so “B” should need to use the `override` keyword just
like it would when overriding any other method.
See how "my" suggestion regarding requiring a keyword for implementation of
protocol requirement (but with `override` keyword instead of `implement`)
can be very helpful here
(And Karl, seems like "your" suggestion will not help here - I mean we'll
have to change bar() definition in B in case A implement its own bar())
In this case, initially, B.bar() must be marked with "override" as it is
implementing protocol's requirement. *And* this will "protect" B class in
future if class A will implement its own bar() method:
protocol Foo {
func bar()
}
extension Foo {
func bar() {
print("I am bar.")
}
}
class A:Foo {
}
class B:A {
*override* func bar() { // currently protocol impelentation
print("I am B.")
}
}
and then if
class A:Foo {
override func bar() {...}
}
,B's definition will not be changed.
Then we have a question regarding super.bar() inside B.bar(), i.e. should
it be accessible or not. I believe we should consider if it could be
implemented, so in case A has no bar(), super.bar() will call protocol's
implementation, otherwise (if A contains bar()) - A.bar() will be called.
Don't know if this is what very hard to implement.
Probably as first step super.bar() will not be allowed inside of protocol
implementation.
Swift allows for protocols to have default *implementations* for
requirements. And *also* Swift allows you to *not* implement requirement
that has default implementation in conformed type.
When you don't implement such requirement in type - the type *inherits*
that implementation. We have classical inheritance scheme like in
inheritance of super type's method. When you override super type's method
you have to use `override`. I believe overriding the inherited default
implementation of requirement - also should be marked with `override`.
Then, Swift allows protocol to have extension in any source file in
project. You can have no default implementation *at moment of writing* your
type, but you can have such default implementation *at moment of
compilation*. So, as soon as we *can't* know if protocol's requirement will
*actually* have default implementation during the compilation - logically
that we should use `override` to mark each method/prop defined as
implementation of protocol, to suppose that there *is* default
implementation which will be *overridden* by our custom implementation.
To illustrate this more clearly, suppose that “Foo” and “A: Foo” are
defined in a 3rd-party library, while “B: A” is written in a client module.
If the library changes to give “A” its own custom implementation of
“bar()”, that *should not* affect client code—because the class “A” still
conforms to “Foo” so it still is known to have a “bar()” method—but right
now it *does*:
With the status quo, the simple change of moving a function between a
protocol extension and a conforming class currently requires downstream
source-code modifications in clients (in this case, adding `override` to
“B.bar()”).
I propose that `override` should be required in subclasses on any method
which the superclass proffers as a customization point, no matter the
provenance of that claim.
Nevin
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Zhao Xin via swift-evolution
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thank you to Игорь Никитин and Adrian Zubarev. Now I can convince
myself for this behavior.
As Adrian's example shows, there is no `bar()` implemented in `class
A`, so there is no `override func bar()` in class B`. My thought
that `self.bar()` would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`, is called
"dynamic binding", which is basing on the `override`. Since there is no
`override`, there is no "dynamic binding". I thought "dynamic binding"
was basing on dynamic type of `self`. It was not. I was wrong.
The behavior is clear now. In class A's `self.bar()`, the runtime finds
that there is no implementation of `bar()` in `class A`, so it calls
the `bar` in protocol extension. In class A's `(self as! B).bar()`, as
`class B` contains the implementation of `bar()`, the runtime calls it.
Zhaoxin
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I can’t tell you the reason, but to me it feels like it’s doing the
following thing:
|+ - - (Type: B) - - + | | | func bar() + - + (Type: A) - - + < - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | | | | + - - - - - - - +
func output() + - + (Protocol: Foo) - - + — - self.bar() - + -
(self as! B).bar() - + | | | | + - - - - - - - + (default) func
bar() | <- - - - - - - - + | | + - - - - - - - - - - - - + |
|class A:Foo { func bar() {} func output() { print(type(of:self))
self.bar() (self as! B).bar() } } class B:A { override func bar() {
print("I am B.") } } |
Would solve this temporarily.
And there we are again with the same discussion if custom
implementation of protocol members, which have default
implementation, should have the |override| keyword or not.
Imagine your code like this (not valid code):
|protocol Foo { func bar() } extension Foo { func bar() { print("I
am bar.") } } class A : Foo { func output() { print(type(of:self))
default.bar() // fallback an call directly the default
implementation whenever needed self.bar() // will print "I am bar."
on A().output() but should print "I am B." if Self == B (self as!
B).bar() } } class B : A { override func bar() { print("I am B.") } } |
I still think default implementations should be called through
something like |default.| + whenever you override a default
implementation you’d need |override|. There is a discussion going
on: |Mark protocol methods with their protocol|. I clearly did not
solved your issue, but I might have wake your interest to
participate. ;)
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 20. September 2016 um 04:13:22, Zhao Xin via swift-users
([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb:
See below code.
protocol Foo {
func bar()
}
extension Foo {
func bar() {
print("I am bar.")
}
}
class A:Foo {
func output() {
print(type(of:self)) // prints "B".
self.bar() // prints "I am bar."
(self as! B).bar() // prints "I am B."
}
}
class B:A {
func bar() {
print("I am B.")
}
}
let b = B()
b.output()
I thought `self.bar()` would do the same as `(self as! B).bar()`.
It didn't. In my opinion, `type(of:self) is B.type`, so they
should be the same, shouldn't they?
Zhaoxin
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
<https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
<https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
<https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
