Alternatives to ProtocolObject
#460
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
madsmtm
added
enhancement
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I suspect it may be possible for us to basically never need to use
ProtocolObject, but instead rely on the compiler to do the work of figuring out which traits are valid for which objects.In this PR I've experimented with
CoercedUnsizedforId, to show that it can indeed work through that. If we also changed message sending such that&dyn NSObjectProtocoltranslates toNonNull<AnyObject>, then using protocol objects would look very, very similar to normal Rust code (methods take&dyn MyProtocoland end up returningId<dyn MyProtocol>).One worry is that the vtable may be included in the final binary, that would have to be thoroughly tested beforehand.