Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[SR-1445] Recursive protocol constraints #44054

Closed
hartbit opened this issue May 8, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

[SR-1445] Recursive protocol constraints #44054

hartbit opened this issue May 8, 2016 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@hartbit
Copy link
Collaborator

@hartbit hartbit commented May 8, 2016

Previous ID SR-1445
Radar rdar://problem/20531108
Original Reporter @hartbit
Type Bug
Status Resolved
Resolution Done
Additional Detail from JIRA
Votes 7
Component/s Compiler
Labels Bug
Assignee @DougGregor
Priority Medium

md5: 4b84506f25ece4c8bff8423d20b24de5

blocks:

  • SR-3454 Eliminate _IndexableBase protocol

is duplicated by:

  • SR-5479 protocol associatedtype where-clause rules not consistent with direct colon constraint rules

relates to:

  • SR-6225 Swift compiler crashes if two protocols refer the type of each other spreat around diffenrent files.
  • SR-4979 SubSequence is not a Sequence, can't be zipped?

Issue Description:

From the Generics Manifesto:

Currently, an associated type cannot be required to conform to its enclosing protocol (or any protocol that inherits that protocol). For example, in the standard library SubSequence type of a Sequence should itself be a Sequence:

protocol Sequence {
  associatedtype Iterator : IteratorProtocol
  ...
  associatedtype SubSequence : Sequence   // currently ill-formed, but should be possible
}

The compiler currently rejects this protocol, which is unfortunate: it effectively pushes the SubSequence-must-be-a-Sequence requirement into every consumer of SubSequence, and does not communicate the intent of this abstraction well.

@jadengeller
Copy link
Mannequin

@jadengeller jadengeller mannequin commented May 8, 2017

Will implementation of this feature allow for instantiation of structs that add a recursive protocol constraint? i.e.

protocol Wrapper { associatedtype Wrapped }
indirect enum Foo<Bar: Wrapper> where Bar.Wrapped == Foo { case bar(Bar) }

This code currently compiles, but it is impossible to create an instance of `Foo` since you cannot write a type that is parameterized by itself. I guess I would also expect recursive typealiases to work as well.

typealias FooFix = Foo<FooFix?> // assuming Optional: Wrapper

@davidbjames
Copy link

@davidbjames davidbjames commented Jul 28, 2017

What is the status on this? Seems a critical piece to the generic puzzle. 🙂

Code from a library I'm writing:

public protocol QueryBridgeable  {
    
    associatedtype Base = Self where Base : Queryable & QueryBridgeable
    
    var query:QueryFactory<Base> { get } // Error "'query' used within its own type"
    func query(_ options:SubQueryOptions) -> QueryFactory<Base>
}

All items that are "query bridgeable" should be able to generate ("query") items that are themselves "query bridgeable" so they have access to the same interface.

@DougGregor
Copy link
Member

@DougGregor DougGregor commented Aug 1, 2017

Still working on it, but getting a whole lot closer!

@davidbjames
Copy link

@davidbjames davidbjames commented Aug 2, 2017

Go Doug Go!! 🙂

@Moximillian
Copy link
Contributor

@Moximillian Moximillian commented Sep 25, 2017

@davidbjames is there a reason why this wouldn't work for you?

public protocol QueryBridgeable  {
  var query: QueryFactory<QueryBridgeable & Queryable> { get }
  func query(_ options: SubQueryOptions) -> QueryFactory<QueryBridgeable & Queryable>
}

@DougGregor
Copy link
Member

@DougGregor DougGregor commented Nov 2, 2017

I'm going to mark this as "done" for now. While there are some known bugs (including non-trivial ones!), we've rolled out the feature in the standard library and developers should be able to use it in Swift 4.1.

@swift-ci swift-ci transferred this issue from apple/swift-issues Apr 25, 2022
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants