Is there a difference between these two in Swift?
protocol ABProtocol: AProtocol, BProtocol {}
typealias ABProtocol = AProtocol&BProtocol
To make things clearer, I will rename the second one to:
typealias ABProtocolIntersection = AProtocol & BProtocol
I can think of two differences off the top of my head.
If your type conform to AProtocol and BProtocol, the type is automatically a subtype of ABProtocolIntersection, but it does not automatically conform to ABProtocol. After all, ABProtocol is a totally different protocol.
Example:
class Foo: AProtocol, BProtocol { ... }
func foo<T: ABProtocolIntersection>(type: T.Type) { }
func bar<T: ABProtocol>(type: T.Type) { }
foo(type: Foo.self) // works
bar(type: Foo.self) // error
Another difference is that you can put extensions on ABProtocol, but not ABProtocolIntersection:
extension ABProtocol { } // OK
extension ABProtocolExtension { } // error
This is because ABProtocolIntersection is a non-nominal type, similar to types like (Int, Int) or (Int) -> String. See also: What is a 'non-nominal type' in Swift?
Yes there is a difference. The former defines a new protocol to which types must conform when it is used. The latter only defines a "placeholder" for AProtocol&BProtocol
Consider the following code:
protocol AProtocol{}
protocol BProtocol{}
protocol ABProtocol1: AProtocol, BProtocol {}
typealias ABProtocol2 = AProtocol & BProtocol
func f1(value: ABProtocol1) {}
func f2(value: ABProtocol2) {}
Arguments to f1 must conform to ABProtocol1 but arguments to f2 can conform to AProtocol and BProtocol. You do not need to explicitly conform types to ABProtocol2. For example:
struct A: AProtocol, BProtocol
{
}
f1(value: A()) // Error!
f2(value: A()) // OK
Related
Let's suppose I have 2 swift protocols:
protocol A: AnyObject {}
protocol B: A {}
On a generic function, I would like to retrieve if the passed type T can conform to the protocol A:
func method<T>(_ type: T.Type) -> Bool {
return T.self is A.Protocol // A.Type fails always
}
On the previous method in case I send a type A everything works fine, but if I try to send a type that conforms B it fails. The expected result will be a true as B already conforms to A.
Is there any way to achieve this logic?
Thanks in advance.
Here is a way of achieving this:
protocol A: AnyObject {}
protocol B: A {}
func method<T>(_ type: T.Type) -> Bool {
return false
}
func method<T: A>(_ type: T.Type) -> Bool {
return true
}
class Temp1: A {}
class Temp2: B {}
class Temp3 {}
print(method(Temp1.self)) // true
print(method(Temp2.self)) // true
print(method(Temp3.self)) // false
Write two methods the same, apart from one has generics <T> and the other is <T: A>. In this example, Temp1 and Temp2 will use the <T: A> method whereas Temp3 will use just the <T> method since it doesn't conform to A.
Here's an example:
protocol Feed {
func items<T>() -> [T]? where T: FeedItem
}
protocol FeedItem {}
class FeedModel: Feed, Decodable {
func items<T>() -> [T]? where T : FeedItem {
return [FeedItemModel]() // Error: Cannot convert return expression of type '[FeedItemModel]' to return type '[T]?'
}
}
class FeedItemModel: FeedItem, Decodable {}
Why does it:
A) try to convert to T when T is a generic, not a type?
B) does not recognize FeedItemModel as conforming to FeedItem?
func items<T>() -> [T]? where T : FeedItem
This says that the caller can define T to be whatever they want, as long as T conforms to FeedItemModel, and this function will return an optional array of those.
FeedItemModel is something that conforms to FeedItem, but it is not promised to be the type T that the caller requested.
As an example, consider:
class OtherModel: FeedItem {}
According to your function signature, I can do this:
let ms: [OtherModel]? = FeedModel().items()
But your function won't then return [OtherModel]? to me. I suspect you don't actually mean this to be generic. I expect you mean:
func items() -> [FeedItemModel]?
or possibly
func items() -> [FeedItem]?
(Though I would think very hard before doing the latter one and make sure that the protocol existential is really doing useful work here.)
A)
T is a type, a homogenous concrete type specified at runtime.
Imaging T is class Foo : FeedItem it's obvious that FeedItemModel cannot be converted to Foo
B)
FeedItemModel is recognized as conforming to FeedItem but this is irrelevant.
It's often a mix-up of generics and protocols. Generic types are not covariant. If you need covariant types use an associated type.
Either you can ignore generics because because it only applies to that one function and it isn't needed since directly saying that the return type is [FeedItem]? yields the same result
protocol Feed {
func items() -> [FeedItem]?
}
class FeedModel: Feed, Decodable {
func items() -> [FeedItem]? {
return [OtherModel]()
}
}
If you on the other hand want a generic protocol then you should use a associated type
protocol Feed2 {
associatedtype T: FeedItem
func items() -> [T]?
}
class FeedModel2: Feed2, Decodable {
typealias T = FeedItemModel
func items() -> [T]? {
return [FeedItemModel]()
}
}
I'm trying to add functionality to an NSManagedObject via a protocol. I added a default implementation which works fine, but as soon as I try to extend my subclass with the protocol it tells me that parts of it are not implemented, even though I added the default implementation.
Anyone having Ideas of what I'm doing wrong?
class Case: NSManagedObject {
}
protocol ObjectByIdFetchable {
typealias T
typealias I
static var idName: String { get }
static func entityName() -> String
static func objectWithId(ids:[I], context: NSManagedObjectContext) -> [T]
}
extension ObjectByIdFetchable where T: NSManagedObject, I: AnyObject {
static func objectWithId(ids:[I], context: NSManagedObjectContext) -> [T] {
let r = NSFetchRequest(entityName: self.entityName())
r.predicate = NSPredicate(format: "%K IN %#", idName, ids)
return context.typedFetchRequest(r)
}
}
extension Case: ObjectByIdFetchable {
typealias T = Case
typealias I = Int
class var idName: String {
return "id"
}
override class func entityName() -> String {
return "Case"
}
}
The error I get is Type Case doesn't conform to protocol ObjectByIdFetchable
Help very much appreciated.
We'll use a more scaled-down example (below) to shed light on what goes wrong here. The key "error", however, is that Case cannot make use of the default implementation of objectWithId() for ... where T: NSManagedObject, I: AnyObject; since type Int does not conform to the type constraint AnyObject. The latter is used to represent instances of class types, whereas Int is a value type.
AnyObject can represent an instance of any class type.
Any can represent an instance of any type at all, including function types.
From the Language Guide - Type casting.
Subsequently, Case does not have access to any implementation of the blueprinted objectWithId() method, and does hence not conform to protocol ObjectByIdFetchable.
Default extension of Foo to T:s conforming to Any works, since Int conforms to Any:
protocol Foo {
typealias T
static func bar()
static func baz()
}
extension Foo where T: Any {
static func bar() { print ("bar") }
}
class Case : Foo {
typealias T = Int
class func baz() {
print("baz")
}
}
The same is, however, not true for extending Foo to T:s conforming to AnyObject, as Int does not conform to the class-type general AnyObject:
protocol Foo {
typealias T
static func bar()
static func baz()
}
/* This will not be usable by Case below */
extension Foo where T: AnyObject {
static func bar() { print ("bar") }
}
/* Hence, Case does not conform to Foo, as it contains no
implementation for the blueprinted method bar() */
class Case : Foo {
typealias T = Int
class func baz() {
print("baz")
}
}
Edit addition: note that if you change (as you've posted in you own answer)
typealias T = Int
into
typealias T = NSNumber
then naturally Case has access to the default implementation of objectWithId() for ... where T: NSManagedObject, I: AnyObject, as NSNumber is class type, which conforms to AnyObject.
Finally, note from the examples above that the keyword override is not needed for implementing methods blueprinted in a protocol (e.g., entityName() method in your example above). The extension of Case is an protocol extension (conforming to ObjectByIdFetchable by implementing blueprinted types and methods), and not really comparable to subclassing Case by a superclass (in which case you might want to override superclass methods).
I found the solution to the problem. I thought it's the typealias T which is the reason for not compiling. That's actually not true, it's I which I said to AnyObject, the interesting thing is that Int is not AnyObject. I had to change Int to NSNumber
Following code:
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType = Int // used typealias-assignment
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType) {
print(someVar)
}
}
gives compile-time error:
Use of undeclared type 'SomeType'
Adding, say typealias SomeType = Double, to the SomeClass resolves the error.
The question is, what's the point of typealias-assignment part (which is optional btw) of protocol associated type declaration though?
In this case the assignment of Int to the typealias is equal to no assignment because it gets overridden by your conforming type:
// this declaration is equal since you HAVE TO provide the type for SomeType
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
Such an assignment provides a default type for SomeType which gets overridden by your implementation in SomeClass, but it is especially useful for protocol extensions:
protocol Returnable {
typealias T = Int // T is by default of type Int
func returnValue(value: T) -> T
}
extension Returnable {
func returnValue(value: T) -> T {
return value
}
}
struct AStruct: Returnable {}
AStruct().returnValue(3) // default signature: Int -> Int
You get the function for free only by conforming to the protocol without specifying the type of T. If you want to set your own type write typealias T = String // or any other type in the struct body.
Some additional notes about the provided code example
You solved the problem because you made it explicit which type the parameter has. Swift also infers your used type:
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: Double) {
print(someVar)
}
}
So SomeType of the protocol is inferred to be Double.
Another example where you can see that SomeType in the class declaration doesn't refer to to the protocol:
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
typealias Some = Int
func someFunc(someVar: Some) {
print(someVar)
}
}
// check the type of SomeType of the protocol
// dynamicType returns the current type and SomeType is a property of it
SomeClass().dynamicType.SomeType.self // Int.Type
// SomeType gets inferred form the function signature
However if you do something like that:
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType: SomeProtocol
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
SomeType has to be of type SomeProtocol which can be used for more explicit abstraction and more static code whereas this:
protocol SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeProtocol)
}
would be dynamically dispatched.
There is some great information in the documentation on "associated types" in protocols.
Their use is abundant throughout the standard library, for an example reference the SequenceType protocol, which declares a typealias for Generator (and specifies that it conforms to GeneratorType). This allows the protocol declaration to refer to that aliased type.
In your case, where you used typealias SomeType = Int, perhaps what you meant was "I want SomeType to be constrained to Integer-like behavior because my protocol methods will depend on that constraint" - in which case, you may want to use typealias SomeType: IntegerType in your protocol, and then in your class go on to assign a type to that alias which conforms to IntegerType.
UPDATE
After opening a bug w/ Apple on this and having had extensive discussion around it, I have come to an understanding of what the base issue is at the heart of this:
when conforming to a protocol, you cannot directly refer to an associated type that was declared only within that protocol
(note, however, that when extending a protocol the associated type is available, as you would expect)
So in your initial code example:
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType = Int
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType) { // use of undeclared type "SomeType"
print(someVar)
}
}
...the error re: "use of undeclared type" is correct, your class SomeClass has not declared the type SomeType
However, an extension to SomeProtocol has access to the associated type, and can refer to it when providing an implementation:
(note that this requires using a where clause in order to define the requirement on the associated type)
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType = Int
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
extension SomeProtocol where SomeType == Int {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType) {
print("1 + \(someVar) = \(1 + someVar)")
}
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {}
SomeClass().someFunc(3) // => "1 + 3 = 4"
There is great article that actually gives you answer for your question. I suggest everyone to read it to get into type-aliases and some more advanced stuff that comes up when you use it.
Citation from website:
Conceptually, there is no generic protocols in Swift. But by using
typealias we can declare a required alias for another type.
I have this protocol:
protocol Addable
{
mutating func addNumber(value: Int)
}
and this extension
extension Int : Addable
{
mutating func addNumber(value: Int)
{
self = self + value
}
}
This code:
var number : Int = 10
number.addNumber(10)
println(number)
Correctly prints 20
Now I want to extend the protocol Addable to other types. If I understand correctly, I don't use Generics with protocol, but I use an associated type:
protocol Addable
{
typealias AddableType
mutating func addNumber(value: AddableType)
}
So now, AddableType means a generic type, and I can extend for example Float
extension Float : Addable
{
mutating func addNumber(value: Float)
{
self = self + value
}
}
var another : Float = 10.5
another.addNumber(10.1)
println(another)
This prints 20.6
Now, I know that I can enforce the associated type to conform to a protocol
protocol Addable
{
typealias AddableType : AProtocol, AnotherProtocol // ...
mutating func addNumber(value: AddableType)
}
But, and here it's the question, I cannot enforce the conformance to a Type or some types
protocol Addable
{
typealias AddableType : Int, Float
mutating func addNumber(value: AddableType)
}
Error: Inheritance from non-protocol, non-class type 'Int'
Error: Inheritance from non-protocol, non-class type 'Float'
Is there any possibility to do this?
You can create a second protocol and implement that on the types that you want:
protocol AddableRequirement {}
extension Int: AddableRequirement {}
extension Float: AddableRequirement {}
protocol Addable {
typealias AddableType: AddableRequirement
mutating func addNumber(value: AddableType)
}
You also may want to use Self instead of a typealias:
protocol Addable {
mutating func addNumber(value: Self)
}
That way, your protocol requires that the type always be addable with itself.
You could define a new protocol and declare conformance for the types you want to allow.
protocol AllowedAddableType {}
extension Int: AllowedAddableType {}
extension Float: AllowedAddableType {}
// ...
protocol Addable
{
typealias AddableType: AllowedAddableType
mutating func addNumber(value: AddableType)
}
Types can conform to protocols, and protocols can conform to protocols, but protocols cannot conform to types. Having a protocol conform to a type doesn't make any sense within the grammatical definition of the language.
I'm guessing that your intention is to limit the types of objects that are allowed to conform to this protocol. In that case, you can define a protocol that inherits from a type, and then have your protocol conform to that protocol.
protocol TypeRestrictor {}
extension Int: TypeRestrictor {}
extension Float: TypeRestrictor {}
protocol Addable {
typealias AddableType: TypeRestrictor
mutating func addNumber(value: AddableType)
}