a and b are not the same value, and don't model the same underlying concept.
a: Int would be 0x0000000000000003.
b: Float would be 0x40400000.
While both are specified literally as "3" the compiler de-sugars that into the values above, and further, the type system takes that knowledge into consideration to prevent you from doing things that don't make sense like trying to equate "a" and "b" without explicitly performing a lossy conversion (Binary operator '==' cannot be applied to operands of type 'Float' and 'Int').
I don't believe this to be a name resolution issue, but rather a protocol conformance creates a vtable for the protocol but beyond that dynamic dispatch doesn't exist so it's not possible to resolve the actual method overridden in the subclass.
This isn't a statement on typing (other than your example actually making a solid case for strong typing); rather the boundary between static and dynamic dispatch is not well-constructed in the case of protocol conformances.
a: Int would be 0x0000000000000003.
b: Float would be 0x40400000.
While both are specified literally as "3" the compiler de-sugars that into the values above, and further, the type system takes that knowledge into consideration to prevent you from doing things that don't make sense like trying to equate "a" and "b" without explicitly performing a lossy conversion (Binary operator '==' cannot be applied to operands of type 'Float' and 'Int').
I don't believe this to be a name resolution issue, but rather a protocol conformance creates a vtable for the protocol but beyond that dynamic dispatch doesn't exist so it's not possible to resolve the actual method overridden in the subclass.
This isn't a statement on typing (other than your example actually making a solid case for strong typing); rather the boundary between static and dynamic dispatch is not well-constructed in the case of protocol conformances.