mirror of
https://github.com/apple/swift.git
synced 2026-06-20 15:42:51 +02:00
Kavon Farvardin
21b2ebff12
Opaque return types are special type declarations that have it
own nested generic signature. Thus, given this:
```
protocol P<A> { associatedtype A: ~Copyable }
func f<T: ~Copyable>() -> some P<T> {}
```
The generic signature for f is <T where T Escapable>, and
for the opaque return type, its nested signature ends up as
```
<X where X: P, X.A == T>
```
With SE-503, we will now also expand a default for the suppressed
primary associated type, so the signature after expansion becomes
```
<X where X: P, X.A == T, X.A: Copyable>
```
It would be smarter to effectively have this rule
```
X.A == T, T: ~Copyable
----------------------
X.A: ~Copyable
```
where we infer the inverse on X.A to cancel-out the
expanded default X.A: Copyable. We already do this for
two in-scope type parameters, and it would be better if
we did it if one side was out-of-scope, but that would
be source-breaking to do in general.
In the case of opaque return types, the fact that
it has a nested generic signature seems more an
artifact of the implementation. There also is little
risk of source break, as the only kinds of same-type
requirements that can appear are from parameterized
protocol type.
The experimental suppressed associated types prior to
SE-503 wouldn't be broken by this change, as they do
not infer defaults that need suppression, and we only
filter-out requirements from defaults expansion, rather
than explicitly-written ones.
rdar://175500824