RequirementMachine: Opaque archetype support (sort of) #41868
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…nformanceRequirement()
Complete support is behind a flag, because it can result in a non-convergent rewrite system if the opaque result type has a recursive conformance of its own (eg, `some View` for SwiftUI's View protocol). Without the flag, it's good enough for simple examples; you just can't have a requirement that mentions a nested type of a type parameter equated to the concrete type. Fixes rdar://problem/88135291, https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-15983.
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test macOS |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Complete support is behind a flag, because it can result in a non-convergent
rewrite system if the opaque result type has a recursive conformance of its
own (eg,
some Viewfor SwiftUI's View protocol).Without the flag, it's good enough for simple examples; you just can't have
a requirement that mentions a nested type of a type parameter equated to
the concrete type.
Fixes rdar://problem/88135291, https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-15983.