Swift noob here. Consider this Swift 5.7 code:
import Foundation
// This is according to the grammar.
protocol TestProtocol1 {
associatedtype T
associatedtype U
}
// Not allowed by the grammer, but still compiles.
protocol TestProtocol2<T> {
associatedtype T
associatedtype U
}
// Doesn't seem to matter if I add one or both type arguments.
protocol TestProtocol3<T, U> {
associatedtype T
associatedtype U
}
// This is fine. As expected.
class TestClass1 : TestProtocol1 {
typealias T = Int
typealias U = Bool
}
// Fine too. Even though I don't specify the type arguments.
class TestClass2 : TestProtocol2 {
typealias T = Int
typealias U = Bool
}
// error: cannot inherit from protocol type with generic argument 'TestProtocol3<Int, Bool>'
class TestClass3 : TestProtocol3<Int, Bool> {
typealias T = Int
typealias U = Bool
}
Questions:
Is there any semantic difference between the three protocol definitions?
Why does it compile when declaring the associated types as generic arguments when the grammar doesn't allow it?
Why is it useful to (probably redundantly) add type arguments to protocols? For
example, protocol Sequence<Element> does this too.
The "generic parameters" that you are seeing are the protocols' primary associated types, proposed in SE-0346, implemented in Swift 5.7, I suppose the grammar section in the language reference just hasn't been updated yet.
The three protocol declarations are semantically different, in that they have different primary associated types. When using the protocol in certain positions, primary associated types are what you can directly specify in <...>, rather than specify them somewhere else like in a where clause. For example, when using the protocol as a generic constraint:
func foo<P: TestProtocol2<Int>>(p: P) { ... }
is syntactic sugar for:
func foo<P: TestProtocol2>(p: P) where P.T == Int { ... }
The former is just a little more concise :)
You cannot do something similar with TestProtocol1, because it doesn't have primary associated types.
For TestProtocol3, you must specify both primary associated types:
func foo<P: TestProtocol3<Int, Bool>>(p: P) { ... }
According to the SE proposal, this syntax was also planned to be usable in the protocol conformance clause of a concrete type, like in your code:
class TestClass3 : TestProtocol3<Int, Bool> { // does not compile
However, this feature did not get added for some reason. You can still use it in the inheritance clause of a protocol though:
protocol TestProtocol4: TestProtocol3<Int, Bool> { } // works
See the SE proposal for more details.
For the first question Is there any semantic difference between the three protocol definitions?
I dont think so . When you create a protocol with <..> after protocol name , Protocols think that the name giving between <> is a associated type or types but you must add that associatedtype name with the same in <>
For example if you delete U TestProtocol3 like
protocol TestProtocol3<T, U>{
associatedtype T
}
you will get an error says : An associated type named 'U' must be declared in the protocol 'TestProtocol3' or a protocol it inherits.In the opposite way if you delete U in protocol TestProtocol3<T, U> like protocol TestProtocol3<T> , will not give an any error.
Here is my answer to your questions:
Is there any semantic difference between the three protocol definitions?
The only difference it's that TestProtocol1 has the correct declaration.
Why does it compile when declaring the associated types as generic arguments when the grammar doesn't allow it?
I made the test and it doesn't compile for me! kind weird 🤔
Why is it useful to (probably redundantly) add type arguments to protocols? For example, protocol Sequence does this too.
I'm not sure that I understand your question here but, the Sequence protocol is declared in the same way you had declared your TestProtocol1
/// A sequence should provide its iterator in O(1). The `Sequence` protocol
/// makes no other requirements about element access, so routines that
/// traverse a sequence should be considered O(*n*) unless documented
/// otherwise.
public protocol Sequence {
/// A type representing the sequence's elements.
associatedtype Element where Self.Element == Self.Iterator.Element
/// A type that provides the sequence's iteration interface and
/// encapsulates its iteration state.
associatedtype Iterator : IteratorProtocol
...
}
``
Related
I am attempting (for essentially no reason) to make a protocol which describes categories from category theory. I have tried to come up with something like this.
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object: Protocol
}
protocol Hom {
associatedtype C: Category
associatedtype Source: C.Object
associatedtype Target: C.Object
}
In particular, I want each Hom type to have an associated category C and an associated Source and Target type which are both objects in that category. Consequently, I have associated an Object protocol to each Category, and have tried to make the Source and Target of a Hom conform to the Object protocol for the corresponding Category. The code above fails to compile with
Type 'Self.Source' constrained to non-protocol, non-class type 'Self.C.Object'
This error is at least unclear, for C.Object is declared as a protocol. Is there any way I can work around this issue?
Edit:
As Rob has pointed out, the code as is does not make much sense. Protocol is a particular class from ObjC and is not a type which describes protocols. Further, there is no type that describes all protocols, because protocols themselves cannot conform to protocols as they are just requirements on other types. What I was looking for is a metatype which Any.Protocol, Sequence.Protocol, etc. were all instances of.
I will go into more detail as to what kind of construction I am trying to describe.
A category is a type Object and a type of homomorphisms between every pair of instances of Object. For two instances of Object, A and B, the type of homomorphisms is generally written as Hom(A,B), but I will write Hom<A,B> to be Swiftier. Categories then come equipped with composition which has the signature <A: Object, B: Object, C: Object>(_ f: Hom<A,B>, _ g: Hom<B,C>) -> Hom<A,C>.
If f is an instance of Hom<A,B>, then A is called the source or domain of f and B is called the target or codomain of f.
Types themselves are then a category where Object is the metatype of all types and Hom<A,B> = (A) -> B.
The primary reason categories are difficult in Swift is because Swift does not have dependent types. There is no way to describe a category whose object type is Int because there is no way to have a type Hom<0,0>. However, if the Object type is required to be a metatype, then suddenly Hom<A,B> is a sensical thing to describe to the type system because an instance of a metatype is a type (I think), which can be a generic parameter. This is what I attempted to describe by setting Object: Protocol.
In Swift, I would really wish to describe
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object: Metatype
associatedtype Hom<A: Object, B: Object>
func compose<A: Object, B: Object, C: Object>(_ f: Hom<A,B>, then g: Hom<B,C>) -> Hom<A,C>
}
but this is also a non-starter because associated types cannot have generic parameters.
In my use case, I have a protocol that describes finitely generated abelian groups and a protocol that describes finitely generated unital rings, and I would love to write generic code which does not care whether or not it is working with GroupHom<A,B> where A: AbelianGroup, B: Abelian Group, RingHom<A,B> where A: Ring, B: Ring, or (A) -> B as each of these come equipped with the correct kind of composition.
It might just be impossible to do this, which I would be willing to accept. Please let me know if this is different enough that it should be asked as a separate question.
associatedtype Object: Protocol
This line doesn't mean what you think it means. Protocol isn't part of Swift. It's part of the ObjC runtime. (It's a really confusing import.)
But even if it did mean that, I don't believe it would help you. It is important to realize that in Swift, protocols do not conform to protocols, and protocols with associated types are not types. They're constraints on types. This tends to creep in all over the place and surprise people.
My suspicion is that you're looking to model things along these lines (note that my category theory is very weak, so please forgive me if I use the wrong terms at points).
We want to get to a point where we can say "a category has a collection of objects and a collection of arrows between those objects." To get there, I think we'd want to start with a generic Arrow:
protocol Arrow {
associatedtype Source
associatedtype Target
var apply: (Source) -> Target { get }
}
A homomorphism is an arrow that maps back to its own type.
protocol Homomorphism: Arrow where Source == Target {
typealias Object = Source
}
And with that, we can express a Category:
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object
associatedtype Arrow: Homomorphism where Arrow.Object == Object
}
I'd like to talk about the category of integers and functions (I believe that's a proper category). So first I need functions.
struct Function<Source, Target>: Arrow {
let apply: (Source) -> Target
}
extension Function: Homomorphism where Source == Target {}
And then I can declare the category.
struct Integers: Category {
typealias Object = Int
typealias Arrow = Function<Int, Int>
}
And create a morphism.
let increment = Function(apply: { (x: Int) in x + 1 })
I think this is somewhat the direction you're looking for.
dg
In swift you cannot use a protocol associatedtype as an associatedType cause it is not defined what type is.
Associated Type can only be used as a constraint for types, like this:
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object1:Equatable
}
class Homs:Category{
typealias Object1 = Int
func sum(element:Object1){
print(element+element)
}
}
Or like this
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object1: Equatable
}
protocol Homs {
associatedtype Cat:Category
associatedtype Source: Category where Source.Object1 == Cat.Object1
associatedtype Target: Category where Target.Object1 == Cat.Object1
}
The reason of why your code not compile, is cause, your associatedtype Target is constrained to implements a associatedType (that is not defined) of a protocol. Someone need to define it before to use as a constraint.
An approach to resolve your problem clould be, generate a generic class. Let's to see it:
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object1: Equatable
}
class Homs<Cat:Category,Source,Target> where Cat.Object1 == Source && Cat.Object1 == Target.Object1{
}
Another approach could be create a generic Category class, and a protocol with type for Category class, category Class, Source and Target conforming to Type:
class Category<T>{
}
protocol Homs {
associatedtype ObjectType
associatedtype Cat:Category<ObjectType>
associatedtype Source where Source == ObjectType
associatedtype Target where Target == ObjectType
}
O something like the second example:
protocol Category {
associatedtype Object1: Equatable
}
protocol Homs {
associatedtype Cat:Category
associatedtype Source: Category where Source.Object1 == Cat.Object1
associatedtype Target: Category where Target.Object1 == Cat.Object1
}
Remember, You cannot use protocols with associated types as a type constraint for associated type or as a type for a variable or constant, first someone need to define the associated types.
I hope I helped you.
Why doesn't this Swift code compile?
protocol P { }
struct S: P { }
let arr:[P] = [ S() ]
extension Array where Element : P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let result : [S] = arr.test()
The compiler says: "Type P does not conform to protocol P" (or, in later versions of Swift, "Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported.").
Why not? This feels like a hole in the language, somehow. I realize that the problem stems from declaring the array arr as an array of a protocol type, but is that an unreasonable thing to do? I thought protocols were there exactly to help supply structs with something like a type hierarchy?
Why don't protocols conform to themselves?
Allowing protocols to conform to themselves in the general case is unsound. The problem lies with static protocol requirements.
These include:
static methods and properties
Initialisers
Associated types (although these currently prevent the use of a protocol as an actual type)
We can access these requirements on a generic placeholder T where T : P – however we cannot access them on the protocol type itself, as there's no concrete conforming type to forward onto. Therefore we cannot allow T to be P.
Consider what would happen in the following example if we allowed the Array extension to be applicable to [P]:
protocol P {
init()
}
struct S : P {}
struct S1 : P {}
extension Array where Element : P {
mutating func appendNew() {
// If Element is P, we cannot possibly construct a new instance of it, as you cannot
// construct an instance of a protocol.
append(Element())
}
}
var arr: [P] = [S(), S1()]
// error: Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported
arr.appendNew()
We cannot possibly call appendNew() on a [P], because P (the Element) is not a concrete type and therefore cannot be instantiated. It must be called on an array with concrete-typed elements, where that type conforms to P.
It's a similar story with static method and property requirements:
protocol P {
static func foo()
static var bar: Int { get }
}
struct SomeGeneric<T : P> {
func baz() {
// If T is P, what's the value of bar? There isn't one – because there's no
// implementation of bar's getter defined on P itself.
print(T.bar)
T.foo() // If T is P, what method are we calling here?
}
}
// error: Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported
SomeGeneric<P>().baz()
We cannot talk in terms of SomeGeneric<P>. We need concrete implementations of the static protocol requirements (notice how there are no implementations of foo() or bar defined in the above example). Although we can define implementations of these requirements in a P extension, these are defined only for the concrete types that conform to P – you still cannot call them on P itself.
Because of this, Swift just completely disallows us from using a protocol as a type that conforms to itself – because when that protocol has static requirements, it doesn't.
Instance protocol requirements aren't problematic, as you must call them on an actual instance that conforms to the protocol (and therefore must have implemented the requirements). So when calling a requirement on an instance typed as P, we can just forward that call onto the underlying concrete type's implementation of that requirement.
However making special exceptions for the rule in this case could lead to surprising inconsistencies in how protocols are treated by generic code. Although that being said, the situation isn't too dissimilar to associatedtype requirements – which (currently) prevent you from using a protocol as a type. Having a restriction that prevents you from using a protocol as a type that conforms to itself when it has static requirements could be an option for a future version of the language
Edit: And as explored below, this does look like what the Swift team are aiming for.
#objc protocols
And in fact, actually that's exactly how the language treats #objc protocols. When they don't have static requirements, they conform to themselves.
The following compiles just fine:
import Foundation
#objc protocol P {
func foo()
}
class C : P {
func foo() {
print("C's foo called!")
}
}
func baz<T : P>(_ t: T) {
t.foo()
}
let c: P = C()
baz(c)
baz requires that T conforms to P; but we can substitute in P for T because P doesn't have static requirements. If we add a static requirement to P, the example no longer compiles:
import Foundation
#objc protocol P {
static func bar()
func foo()
}
class C : P {
static func bar() {
print("C's bar called")
}
func foo() {
print("C's foo called!")
}
}
func baz<T : P>(_ t: T) {
t.foo()
}
let c: P = C()
baz(c) // error: Cannot invoke 'baz' with an argument list of type '(P)'
So one workaround to to this problem is to make your protocol #objc. Granted, this isn't an ideal workaround in many cases, as it forces your conforming types to be classes, as well as requiring the Obj-C runtime, therefore not making it viable on non-Apple platforms such as Linux.
But I suspect that this limitation is (one of) the primary reasons why the language already implements 'protocol without static requirements conforms to itself' for #objc protocols. Generic code written around them can be significantly simplified by the compiler.
Why? Because #objc protocol-typed values are effectively just class references whose requirements are dispatched using objc_msgSend. On the flip side, non-#objc protocol-typed values are more complicated, as they carry around both value and witness tables in order to both manage the memory of their (potentially indirectly stored) wrapped value and to determine what implementations to call for the different requirements, respectively.
Because of this simplified representation for #objc protocols, a value of such a protocol type P can share the same memory representation as a 'generic value' of type some generic placeholder T : P, presumably making it easy for the Swift team to allow the self-conformance. The same isn't true for non-#objc protocols however as such generic values don't currently carry value or protocol witness tables.
However this feature is intentional and is hopefully to be rolled out to non-#objc protocols, as confirmed by Swift team member Slava Pestov in the comments of SR-55 in response to your query about it (prompted by this question):
Matt Neuburg added a comment - 7 Sep 2017 1:33 PM
This does compile:
#objc protocol P {}
class C: P {}
func process<T: P>(item: T) -> T { return item }
func f(image: P) { let processed: P = process(item:image) }
Adding #objc makes it compile; removing it makes it not compile again.
Some of us over on Stack Overflow find this surprising and would like
to know whether that's deliberate or a buggy edge-case.
Slava Pestov added a comment - 7 Sep 2017 1:53 PM
It's deliberate – lifting this restriction is what this bug is about.
Like I said it's tricky and we don't have any concrete plans yet.
So hopefully it's something that language will one day support for non-#objc protocols as well.
But what current solutions are there for non-#objc protocols?
Implementing extensions with protocol constraints
In Swift 3.1, if you want an extension with a constraint that a given generic placeholder or associated type must be a given protocol type (not just a concrete type that conforms to that protocol) – you can simply define this with an == constraint.
For example, we could write your array extension as:
extension Array where Element == P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let arr: [P] = [S()]
let result: [S] = arr.test()
Of course, this now prevents us from calling it on an array with concrete type elements that conform to P. We could solve this by just defining an additional extension for when Element : P, and just forward onto the == P extension:
extension Array where Element : P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return (self as [P]).test()
}
}
let arr = [S()]
let result: [S] = arr.test()
However it's worth noting that this will perform an O(n) conversion of the array to a [P], as each element will have to be boxed in an existential container. If performance is an issue, you can simply solve this by re-implementing the extension method. This isn't an entirely satisfactory solution – hopefully a future version of the language will include a way to express a 'protocol type or conforms to protocol type' constraint.
Prior to Swift 3.1, the most general way of achieving this, as Rob shows in his answer, is to simply build a wrapper type for a [P], which you can then define your extension method(s) on.
Passing a protocol-typed instance to a constrained generic placeholder
Consider the following (contrived, but not uncommon) situation:
protocol P {
var bar: Int { get set }
func foo(str: String)
}
struct S : P {
var bar: Int
func foo(str: String) {/* ... */}
}
func takesConcreteP<T : P>(_ t: T) {/* ... */}
let p: P = S(bar: 5)
// error: Cannot invoke 'takesConcreteP' with an argument list of type '(P)'
takesConcreteP(p)
We cannot pass p to takesConcreteP(_:), as we cannot currently substitute P for a generic placeholder T : P. Let's take a look at a couple of ways in which we can solve this problem.
1. Opening existentials
Rather than attempting to substitute P for T : P, what if we could dig into the underlying concrete type that the P typed value was wrapping and substitute that instead? Unfortunately, this requires a language feature called opening existentials, which currently isn't directly available to users.
However, Swift does implicitly open existentials (protocol-typed values) when accessing members on them (i.e it digs out the runtime type and makes it accessible in the form of a generic placeholder). We can exploit this fact in a protocol extension on P:
extension P {
func callTakesConcreteP/*<Self : P>*/(/*self: Self*/) {
takesConcreteP(self)
}
}
Note the implicit generic Self placeholder that the extension method takes, which is used to type the implicit self parameter – this happens behind the scenes with all protocol extension members. When calling such a method on a protocol typed value P, Swift digs out the underlying concrete type, and uses this to satisfy the Self generic placeholder. This is why we're able to call takesConcreteP(_:) with self – we're satisfying T with Self.
This means that we can now say:
p.callTakesConcreteP()
And takesConcreteP(_:) gets called with its generic placeholder T being satisfied by the underlying concrete type (in this case S). Note that this isn't "protocols conforming to themselves", as we're substituting a concrete type rather than P – try adding a static requirement to the protocol and seeing what happens when you call it from within takesConcreteP(_:).
If Swift continues to disallow protocols from conforming to themselves, the next best alternative would be implicitly opening existentials when attempting to pass them as arguments to parameters of generic type – effectively doing exactly what our protocol extension trampoline did, just without the boilerplate.
However note that opening existentials isn't a general solution to the problem of protocols not conforming to themselves. It doesn't deal with heterogenous collections of protocol-typed values, which may all have different underlying concrete types. For example, consider:
struct Q : P {
var bar: Int
func foo(str: String) {}
}
// The placeholder `T` must be satisfied by a single type
func takesConcreteArrayOfP<T : P>(_ t: [T]) {}
// ...but an array of `P` could have elements of different underlying concrete types.
let array: [P] = [S(bar: 1), Q(bar: 2)]
// So there's no sensible concrete type we can substitute for `T`.
takesConcreteArrayOfP(array)
For the same reasons, a function with multiple T parameters would also be problematic, as the parameters must take arguments of the same type – however if we have two P values, there's no way we can guarantee at compile time that they both have the same underlying concrete type.
In order to solve this problem, we can use a type eraser.
2. Build a type eraser
As Rob says, a type eraser, is the most general solution to the problem of protocols not conforming to themselves. They allow us to wrap a protocol-typed instance in a concrete type that conforms to that protocol, by forwarding the instance requirements to the underlying instance.
So, let's build a type erasing box that forwards P's instance requirements onto an underlying arbitrary instance that conforms to P:
struct AnyP : P {
private var base: P
init(_ base: P) {
self.base = base
}
var bar: Int {
get { return base.bar }
set { base.bar = newValue }
}
func foo(str: String) { base.foo(str: str) }
}
Now we can just talk in terms of AnyP instead of P:
let p = AnyP(S(bar: 5))
takesConcreteP(p)
// example from #1...
let array = [AnyP(S(bar: 1)), AnyP(Q(bar: 2))]
takesConcreteArrayOfP(array)
Now, consider for a moment just why we had to build that box. As we discussed early, Swift needs a concrete type for cases where the protocol has static requirements. Consider if P had a static requirement – we would have needed to implement that in AnyP. But what should it have been implemented as? We're dealing with arbitrary instances that conform to P here – we don't know about how their underlying concrete types implement the static requirements, therefore we cannot meaningfully express this in AnyP.
Therefore, the solution in this case is only really useful in the case of instance protocol requirements. In the general case, we still cannot treat P as a concrete type that conforms to P.
EDIT: Eighteen more months of working w/ Swift, another major release (that provides a new diagnostic), and a comment from #AyBayBay makes me want to rewrite this answer. The new diagnostic is:
"Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported."
That actually makes this whole thing a lot clearer. This extension:
extension Array where Element : P {
doesn't apply when Element == P since P is not considered a concrete conformance of P. (The "put it in a box" solution below is still the most general solution.)
Old Answer:
It's yet another case of metatypes. Swift really wants you to get to a concrete type for most non-trivial things. [P] isn't a concrete type (you can't allocate a block of memory of known size for P). (I don't think that's actually true; you can absolutely create something of size P because it's done via indirection.) I don't think there's any evidence that this is a case of "shouldn't" work. This looks very much like one of their "doesn't work yet" cases. (Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get Apple to confirm the difference between those cases.) The fact that Array<P> can be a variable type (where Array cannot) indicates that they've already done some work in this direction, but Swift metatypes have lots of sharp edges and unimplemented cases. I don't think you're going to get a better "why" answer than that. "Because the compiler doesn't allow it." (Unsatisfying, I know. My whole Swift life…)
The solution is almost always to put things in a box. We build a type-eraser.
protocol P { }
struct S: P { }
struct AnyPArray {
var array: [P]
init(_ array:[P]) { self.array = array }
}
extension AnyPArray {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let arr = AnyPArray([S()])
let result: [S] = arr.test()
When Swift allows you to do this directly (which I do expect eventually), it will likely just be by creating this box for you automatically. Recursive enums had exactly this history. You had to box them and it was incredibly annoying and restricting, and then finally the compiler added indirect to do the same thing more automatically.
If you extend CollectionType protocol instead of Array and constraint by protocol as a concrete type, you can rewrite the previous code as follows.
protocol P { }
struct S: P { }
let arr:[P] = [ S() ]
extension CollectionType where Generator.Element == P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let result : [S] = arr.test()
Why doesn't this Swift code compile?
protocol P { }
struct S: P { }
let arr:[P] = [ S() ]
extension Array where Element : P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let result : [S] = arr.test()
The compiler says: "Type P does not conform to protocol P" (or, in later versions of Swift, "Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported.").
Why not? This feels like a hole in the language, somehow. I realize that the problem stems from declaring the array arr as an array of a protocol type, but is that an unreasonable thing to do? I thought protocols were there exactly to help supply structs with something like a type hierarchy?
Why don't protocols conform to themselves?
Allowing protocols to conform to themselves in the general case is unsound. The problem lies with static protocol requirements.
These include:
static methods and properties
Initialisers
Associated types (although these currently prevent the use of a protocol as an actual type)
We can access these requirements on a generic placeholder T where T : P – however we cannot access them on the protocol type itself, as there's no concrete conforming type to forward onto. Therefore we cannot allow T to be P.
Consider what would happen in the following example if we allowed the Array extension to be applicable to [P]:
protocol P {
init()
}
struct S : P {}
struct S1 : P {}
extension Array where Element : P {
mutating func appendNew() {
// If Element is P, we cannot possibly construct a new instance of it, as you cannot
// construct an instance of a protocol.
append(Element())
}
}
var arr: [P] = [S(), S1()]
// error: Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported
arr.appendNew()
We cannot possibly call appendNew() on a [P], because P (the Element) is not a concrete type and therefore cannot be instantiated. It must be called on an array with concrete-typed elements, where that type conforms to P.
It's a similar story with static method and property requirements:
protocol P {
static func foo()
static var bar: Int { get }
}
struct SomeGeneric<T : P> {
func baz() {
// If T is P, what's the value of bar? There isn't one – because there's no
// implementation of bar's getter defined on P itself.
print(T.bar)
T.foo() // If T is P, what method are we calling here?
}
}
// error: Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported
SomeGeneric<P>().baz()
We cannot talk in terms of SomeGeneric<P>. We need concrete implementations of the static protocol requirements (notice how there are no implementations of foo() or bar defined in the above example). Although we can define implementations of these requirements in a P extension, these are defined only for the concrete types that conform to P – you still cannot call them on P itself.
Because of this, Swift just completely disallows us from using a protocol as a type that conforms to itself – because when that protocol has static requirements, it doesn't.
Instance protocol requirements aren't problematic, as you must call them on an actual instance that conforms to the protocol (and therefore must have implemented the requirements). So when calling a requirement on an instance typed as P, we can just forward that call onto the underlying concrete type's implementation of that requirement.
However making special exceptions for the rule in this case could lead to surprising inconsistencies in how protocols are treated by generic code. Although that being said, the situation isn't too dissimilar to associatedtype requirements – which (currently) prevent you from using a protocol as a type. Having a restriction that prevents you from using a protocol as a type that conforms to itself when it has static requirements could be an option for a future version of the language
Edit: And as explored below, this does look like what the Swift team are aiming for.
#objc protocols
And in fact, actually that's exactly how the language treats #objc protocols. When they don't have static requirements, they conform to themselves.
The following compiles just fine:
import Foundation
#objc protocol P {
func foo()
}
class C : P {
func foo() {
print("C's foo called!")
}
}
func baz<T : P>(_ t: T) {
t.foo()
}
let c: P = C()
baz(c)
baz requires that T conforms to P; but we can substitute in P for T because P doesn't have static requirements. If we add a static requirement to P, the example no longer compiles:
import Foundation
#objc protocol P {
static func bar()
func foo()
}
class C : P {
static func bar() {
print("C's bar called")
}
func foo() {
print("C's foo called!")
}
}
func baz<T : P>(_ t: T) {
t.foo()
}
let c: P = C()
baz(c) // error: Cannot invoke 'baz' with an argument list of type '(P)'
So one workaround to to this problem is to make your protocol #objc. Granted, this isn't an ideal workaround in many cases, as it forces your conforming types to be classes, as well as requiring the Obj-C runtime, therefore not making it viable on non-Apple platforms such as Linux.
But I suspect that this limitation is (one of) the primary reasons why the language already implements 'protocol without static requirements conforms to itself' for #objc protocols. Generic code written around them can be significantly simplified by the compiler.
Why? Because #objc protocol-typed values are effectively just class references whose requirements are dispatched using objc_msgSend. On the flip side, non-#objc protocol-typed values are more complicated, as they carry around both value and witness tables in order to both manage the memory of their (potentially indirectly stored) wrapped value and to determine what implementations to call for the different requirements, respectively.
Because of this simplified representation for #objc protocols, a value of such a protocol type P can share the same memory representation as a 'generic value' of type some generic placeholder T : P, presumably making it easy for the Swift team to allow the self-conformance. The same isn't true for non-#objc protocols however as such generic values don't currently carry value or protocol witness tables.
However this feature is intentional and is hopefully to be rolled out to non-#objc protocols, as confirmed by Swift team member Slava Pestov in the comments of SR-55 in response to your query about it (prompted by this question):
Matt Neuburg added a comment - 7 Sep 2017 1:33 PM
This does compile:
#objc protocol P {}
class C: P {}
func process<T: P>(item: T) -> T { return item }
func f(image: P) { let processed: P = process(item:image) }
Adding #objc makes it compile; removing it makes it not compile again.
Some of us over on Stack Overflow find this surprising and would like
to know whether that's deliberate or a buggy edge-case.
Slava Pestov added a comment - 7 Sep 2017 1:53 PM
It's deliberate – lifting this restriction is what this bug is about.
Like I said it's tricky and we don't have any concrete plans yet.
So hopefully it's something that language will one day support for non-#objc protocols as well.
But what current solutions are there for non-#objc protocols?
Implementing extensions with protocol constraints
In Swift 3.1, if you want an extension with a constraint that a given generic placeholder or associated type must be a given protocol type (not just a concrete type that conforms to that protocol) – you can simply define this with an == constraint.
For example, we could write your array extension as:
extension Array where Element == P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let arr: [P] = [S()]
let result: [S] = arr.test()
Of course, this now prevents us from calling it on an array with concrete type elements that conform to P. We could solve this by just defining an additional extension for when Element : P, and just forward onto the == P extension:
extension Array where Element : P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return (self as [P]).test()
}
}
let arr = [S()]
let result: [S] = arr.test()
However it's worth noting that this will perform an O(n) conversion of the array to a [P], as each element will have to be boxed in an existential container. If performance is an issue, you can simply solve this by re-implementing the extension method. This isn't an entirely satisfactory solution – hopefully a future version of the language will include a way to express a 'protocol type or conforms to protocol type' constraint.
Prior to Swift 3.1, the most general way of achieving this, as Rob shows in his answer, is to simply build a wrapper type for a [P], which you can then define your extension method(s) on.
Passing a protocol-typed instance to a constrained generic placeholder
Consider the following (contrived, but not uncommon) situation:
protocol P {
var bar: Int { get set }
func foo(str: String)
}
struct S : P {
var bar: Int
func foo(str: String) {/* ... */}
}
func takesConcreteP<T : P>(_ t: T) {/* ... */}
let p: P = S(bar: 5)
// error: Cannot invoke 'takesConcreteP' with an argument list of type '(P)'
takesConcreteP(p)
We cannot pass p to takesConcreteP(_:), as we cannot currently substitute P for a generic placeholder T : P. Let's take a look at a couple of ways in which we can solve this problem.
1. Opening existentials
Rather than attempting to substitute P for T : P, what if we could dig into the underlying concrete type that the P typed value was wrapping and substitute that instead? Unfortunately, this requires a language feature called opening existentials, which currently isn't directly available to users.
However, Swift does implicitly open existentials (protocol-typed values) when accessing members on them (i.e it digs out the runtime type and makes it accessible in the form of a generic placeholder). We can exploit this fact in a protocol extension on P:
extension P {
func callTakesConcreteP/*<Self : P>*/(/*self: Self*/) {
takesConcreteP(self)
}
}
Note the implicit generic Self placeholder that the extension method takes, which is used to type the implicit self parameter – this happens behind the scenes with all protocol extension members. When calling such a method on a protocol typed value P, Swift digs out the underlying concrete type, and uses this to satisfy the Self generic placeholder. This is why we're able to call takesConcreteP(_:) with self – we're satisfying T with Self.
This means that we can now say:
p.callTakesConcreteP()
And takesConcreteP(_:) gets called with its generic placeholder T being satisfied by the underlying concrete type (in this case S). Note that this isn't "protocols conforming to themselves", as we're substituting a concrete type rather than P – try adding a static requirement to the protocol and seeing what happens when you call it from within takesConcreteP(_:).
If Swift continues to disallow protocols from conforming to themselves, the next best alternative would be implicitly opening existentials when attempting to pass them as arguments to parameters of generic type – effectively doing exactly what our protocol extension trampoline did, just without the boilerplate.
However note that opening existentials isn't a general solution to the problem of protocols not conforming to themselves. It doesn't deal with heterogenous collections of protocol-typed values, which may all have different underlying concrete types. For example, consider:
struct Q : P {
var bar: Int
func foo(str: String) {}
}
// The placeholder `T` must be satisfied by a single type
func takesConcreteArrayOfP<T : P>(_ t: [T]) {}
// ...but an array of `P` could have elements of different underlying concrete types.
let array: [P] = [S(bar: 1), Q(bar: 2)]
// So there's no sensible concrete type we can substitute for `T`.
takesConcreteArrayOfP(array)
For the same reasons, a function with multiple T parameters would also be problematic, as the parameters must take arguments of the same type – however if we have two P values, there's no way we can guarantee at compile time that they both have the same underlying concrete type.
In order to solve this problem, we can use a type eraser.
2. Build a type eraser
As Rob says, a type eraser, is the most general solution to the problem of protocols not conforming to themselves. They allow us to wrap a protocol-typed instance in a concrete type that conforms to that protocol, by forwarding the instance requirements to the underlying instance.
So, let's build a type erasing box that forwards P's instance requirements onto an underlying arbitrary instance that conforms to P:
struct AnyP : P {
private var base: P
init(_ base: P) {
self.base = base
}
var bar: Int {
get { return base.bar }
set { base.bar = newValue }
}
func foo(str: String) { base.foo(str: str) }
}
Now we can just talk in terms of AnyP instead of P:
let p = AnyP(S(bar: 5))
takesConcreteP(p)
// example from #1...
let array = [AnyP(S(bar: 1)), AnyP(Q(bar: 2))]
takesConcreteArrayOfP(array)
Now, consider for a moment just why we had to build that box. As we discussed early, Swift needs a concrete type for cases where the protocol has static requirements. Consider if P had a static requirement – we would have needed to implement that in AnyP. But what should it have been implemented as? We're dealing with arbitrary instances that conform to P here – we don't know about how their underlying concrete types implement the static requirements, therefore we cannot meaningfully express this in AnyP.
Therefore, the solution in this case is only really useful in the case of instance protocol requirements. In the general case, we still cannot treat P as a concrete type that conforms to P.
EDIT: Eighteen more months of working w/ Swift, another major release (that provides a new diagnostic), and a comment from #AyBayBay makes me want to rewrite this answer. The new diagnostic is:
"Using 'P' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'P' is not supported."
That actually makes this whole thing a lot clearer. This extension:
extension Array where Element : P {
doesn't apply when Element == P since P is not considered a concrete conformance of P. (The "put it in a box" solution below is still the most general solution.)
Old Answer:
It's yet another case of metatypes. Swift really wants you to get to a concrete type for most non-trivial things. [P] isn't a concrete type (you can't allocate a block of memory of known size for P). (I don't think that's actually true; you can absolutely create something of size P because it's done via indirection.) I don't think there's any evidence that this is a case of "shouldn't" work. This looks very much like one of their "doesn't work yet" cases. (Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get Apple to confirm the difference between those cases.) The fact that Array<P> can be a variable type (where Array cannot) indicates that they've already done some work in this direction, but Swift metatypes have lots of sharp edges and unimplemented cases. I don't think you're going to get a better "why" answer than that. "Because the compiler doesn't allow it." (Unsatisfying, I know. My whole Swift life…)
The solution is almost always to put things in a box. We build a type-eraser.
protocol P { }
struct S: P { }
struct AnyPArray {
var array: [P]
init(_ array:[P]) { self.array = array }
}
extension AnyPArray {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let arr = AnyPArray([S()])
let result: [S] = arr.test()
When Swift allows you to do this directly (which I do expect eventually), it will likely just be by creating this box for you automatically. Recursive enums had exactly this history. You had to box them and it was incredibly annoying and restricting, and then finally the compiler added indirect to do the same thing more automatically.
If you extend CollectionType protocol instead of Array and constraint by protocol as a concrete type, you can rewrite the previous code as follows.
protocol P { }
struct S: P { }
let arr:[P] = [ S() ]
extension CollectionType where Generator.Element == P {
func test<T>() -> [T] {
return []
}
}
let result : [S] = arr.test()
I’m trying to mix generics with protocols and I’m getting a really hard time xD
I have certain architecture implemented in an Android/Java project, and I’m trying to rewrite it to fit it in a swift/iOS project. But I’ve found this limitation.
ProtocolA
protocol ProtocolA {
}
ProtocolB
protocol ProtocolB : ProtocolA {
}
ImplementProtocolA
class ImplementProtocolA <P : ProtocolA> {
let currentProtocol : P
init(currentProtocol : P) {
self.currentProtocol = currentProtocol
}
}
ImplementProtocolB
class ImplementProtocolB : ImplementProtocolA<ProtocolB> {
}
So, when I try to set ProtocolB as the concrete type that implements ProtocolA, I get this error:
Using 'ProtocolB' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'ProtocolA' is not supported
1 Is there any reason for this “limitation”?
2 Is there any workaround to get this implemented?
3 Will it be supported at some point?
--UPDATED--
Another variant of the same problem, I think:
View protocols
protocol View {
}
protocol GetUserView : View {
func showProgress()
func hideProgress()
func showError(message:String)
func showUser(userDemo:UserDemo)
}
Presenter protocols
protocol Presenter {
typealias V : View
}
class UserDemoPresenter : Presenter {
typealias V = GetUserView
}
Error:
UserDemoPresenter.swift Possibly intended match 'V' (aka
'GetUserView') does not conform to 'View’
What is that?? It conforms!
Even if I use View instead of GetUserView, it does not compile.
class UserDemoPresenter : Presenter {
typealias V = View
}
UserDemoPresenter.swift Possibly intended match 'V' (aka 'View') does
not conform to 'View'
xxDD I don’t get it, really.
--UPDATED--
With the solution proposed by Rob Napier the problem is not fixed, instead, it is just delayed.
When a try to define a reference to UserDemoPresenter, I need to specify the generic type, so I get the same error:
private var presenter : UserDemoPresenter<GetUserView>
Using 'GetUserView' as a concrete type conforming to protocol
'GetUserView' is not supported
The underlying reason for the limitation is that Swift doesn't have first-class metatypes. The simplest example is that this doesn't work:
func isEmpty(xs: Array) -> Bool {
return xs.count == 0
}
In theory, this code could work, and if it did there would be a lot of other types I could make (like Functor and Monad, which really can't be expressed in Swift today). But you can't. You need to help Swift nail this down to a concrete type. Often we do that with generics:
func isEmpty<T>(xs: [T]) -> Bool {
return xs.count == 0
}
Notice that T is totally redundant here. There is no reason I should have to express it; it's never used. But Swift requires it so it can turn the abstract Array into the concrete [T]. The same is true in your case.
This is a concrete type (well, it's an abstract type that will be turned into a concrete type any time it's instantiated and P is filled in):
class ImplementProtocolA<P : ProtocolA>
This is a fully abstract type that Swift doesn't have any rule to turn into a concrete type:
class ImplementProtocolB : ImplementProtocolA<ProtocolB>
You need to make it concrete. This will compile:
class ImplementProtocolB<T: ProtocolB> : ImplementProtocolA<T> {}
And also:
class UserDemoPresenter<T: GetUserView> : Presenter {
typealias V = T
}
Just because you're likely to run into the issue later: your life will go much easier if you'll make these structs or final classes. Mixing protocols, generics, and class polymorphism is full of very sharp edges. Sometimes you're lucky and it just won't compile. Sometimes it will call things you don't expect.
You may be interested in A Little Respect for AnySequence which details some related issues.
private var presenter : UserDemoPresenter<GetUserView>
This is still an abstract type. You mean:
final class Something<T: GetUserView> {
private var presenter: UserDemoPresenter<T>
}
If that creates a problem, you'll need to create a box. See Protocol doesn't conform to itself? for discussion of how you type-erase so that you can hold abstract types. But you need to work in concrete types. You can't ultimately specialize on a protocol. You must eventually specialize on something concrete in the majority of cases.
I have to pass an interface as a parameter to a function. Interface is generic a.k.a. has a associated type. I couldn't find a good way to do that. Here is my code:
protocol IObserver : class {
typealias DelegateT
...
}
class Observer: IObserver {
typealias DelegateT = IGeneralEventsDelegate // IGeneralEventsDelegate is a protocol
...
}
func notify(observer: IObserver) { ... } // here I need a type for observer param
I found that this will work:
func notify<T: IObserver where T.DelegateT == IGeneralEventsDelegate>(observer: T) { ... }
, but come on that is too complicated. What if I want to save this param in class variable, should I make the whole class generic, just because of this function.
It is true that I'm C++ developer and I'm new to the Swift language, but the way the things are done are far too complicated and user unfriendly ... or I'm too stupid :)
If you use typealias in a protocol to make it generic-like, then you cannot use it as a variable type until the associated type is resolved. As you have probably experienced, using a protocol with associated type to define a variable (or function parameter) results in a compilation error:
Protocol 'MyProtocol' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self os associated type requirements
That means you cannot use it as a concrete type.
So the only 2 ways I am aware of to use a protocol with associated type as a concrete type are:
indirectly, by creating a class that implements it. Probably not what you have planned to do
making explicit the associated type like you did in your func
See also related answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/26271483/148357