I have code that follows the general design of:
protocol DispatchType {}
class DispatchType1: DispatchType {}
class DispatchType2: DispatchType {}
func doBa
This is indeed correct behaviour as overload resolution takes place at compile time (it would be a pretty expensive operation to take place at runtime). Therefore from within test(value:)
, the only thing the compiler knows about value
is that it's of some type that conforms to DispatchType
– thus the only overload it can dispatch to is func doBar<D : DispatchType>(value: D)
.
Things would be different if generic functions were always specialised by the compiler, because then a specialised implementation of test(value:)
would know the concrete type of value
and thus be able to pick the appropriate overload. However, specialisation of generic functions is currently only an optimisation (as without inlining, it can add significant bloat to your code), so this doesn't change the observed behaviour.
One solution in order to allow for polymorphism is to leverage the protocol witness table (see this great WWDC talk on them) by adding doBar()
as a protocol requirement, and implementing the specialised implementations of it in the respective classes that conform to the protocol, with the general implementation being a part of the protocol extension.
This will allow for the dynamic dispatch of doBar()
, thus allowing it to be called from test(value:)
and having the correct implementation called.
protocol DispatchType {
func doBar()
}
extension DispatchType {
func doBar() {
print("general function called")
}
}
class DispatchType1: DispatchType {
func doBar() {
print("DispatchType1 called")
}
}
class DispatchType2: DispatchType {
func doBar() {
print("DispatchType2 called")
}
}
func test<D : DispatchType>(value: D) {
value.doBar()
}
let d1 = DispatchType1()
let d2 = DispatchType2()
test(value: d1) // "DispatchType1 called"
test(value: d2) // "DispatchType2 called"