I know that it's possible to check if one value is an instance of a potential supertype:
func isInstance<T, U>(_ instance: T, of: U.Type) -> Bool {
return instance is U
}
However, what if you want to check against an entire array? Since you can't have an array of generics, the above approach doesn't really work. What I want to do is something like:
func isInstance<T>(_ instance: T, of types: [Any.Type]) -> Bool {
return types.allSatisfy { instance is $0 }
}
However, a variable (such as $0) isn't allowed as the RHS of an is expression. Is this kind of type check possible?
I saw one type check that used Mirror(reflecting:) and superclassMirror to search the inheritance hierarchy, but that only works for an array of classes, and I need this check to work when the array contains protocols as well.
It is possible, but only for classes and #objc protocols, and only if the object conforms to NSObjectProtocol. It is not possible in the general case for Swift protocols or value types.
import ObjectiveC
func isInstance(_ instance: some NSObjectProtocol, of types: [Any.Type]) -> Bool {
return types.allSatisfy { type in
if let `class` = type as? AnyClass {
return instance.isKind(of: `class`)
} else if let `protocol` = type as AnyObject as? Protocol {
return instance.conforms(to: `protocol`)
} else {
print("Cannot type-check instance against \(type)")
return false
}
}
}
Related
I just found another way to make a great use of protocols and protocol extensions in Swift by extending the Optional protocol to add a function so I can provide default values.
I wrote a blog post about this here: https://janthielemann.de/random-stuff/providing-default-values-optional-string-empty-optional-string-swift-3-1/
The gist of the post is that I needed a clean and easy way to provide default values for optional String which are nil or empty. To do this, I created a Emptyable protocol end extended the Optional protocol like so:
protocol Emptyable {
var isEmpty: Bool { get }
}
extension Optional where Wrapped: Emptyable {
func orWhenNilOrEmpty<T: Emptyable>(_ defaultValue: T) -> T {
switch(self) {
case .none:
return defaultValue
case .some(let value) where value.isEmpty:
return defaultValue
case .some(let value):
return value as! T
}
}
}
extension String: Emptyable {}
Now the question is: Is there a way I can get rid of the Emptyable protocol and instead have a conditional check whether or not a property or function is implemented by the generic type so that I automatically get orWhenNilOrEmpty() for each and every type which has isEmpty?
UPDATE
As suggested by Paulo, the T generic is actually not needed and I created a operator for even quicker access and more convenient usage (at least I think so. Feel free to correct me, I'm always happy to learn new things and improve myself).
I call it the "not empty nil coalescing" operator (who can come up with a better names? I feel like I suck at naming things :/ ). Hopefully some day it helps somebody:
protocol Emptyable {
var isEmpty: Bool { get }
}
infix operator ???: NilCoalescingPrecedence
extension Optional where Wrapped: Emptyable {
func orWhenNilOrEmpty(_ defaultValue: Wrapped) -> Wrapped {
switch(self) {
case .none:
return defaultValue
case .some(let value) where value.isEmpty:
return defaultValue
case .some(let value):
return value
}
}
static func ???(left: Wrapped?, right: Wrapped) -> Wrapped {
return left.orWhenNilOrEmpty(right)
}
}
extension String: Emptyable {}
extension Array: Emptyable {}
extension MyStruct: Emptyable {
let text: String
let number: Int
var isEmpty: Bool { return text.isEmpty && number == 0 }
init(text: String, number: Int) {
self.text = text
self.number = number
}
}
let mandatoryNotEmptyString = optionalOrEmptyString ??? "Default Value"
let mandatoryNotEmptyStruct = optionalOrEmptyStruct ??? MyStruct(name: "Hello World", number: 1)
No, you cannot query if an object or value has a certain property as a constraint on an extension without using a protocol. That would require reflection in a way that is currently not implemented in Swift. Also, an isEmpty property could have different meanings for different types, so testing for the existence of a method or property instead of a protocol could lead to unexpected behaviour.
You could just write
if let unwrappedString = optionalString, !unwrappedString.isEmpty {
// Do stuff
} else {
// Use default value
}
No protocol or extension required and very readable.
In Swift 4, which is coming out this fall, String will conform to BidirectionalCollection, which inherits from Collection. The Collection protocol provides an isEmpty property, so your extension could be
extension Optional where Wrapped: Collection {
// ...
}
But even then you should consider to set empty strings to nil when storing them in the first place, because you now have two states (nil and empty) which seem to represent the exact same thing.
I have been trying to extract non-nil values from the String array. Like below. But, my senior wants it to be able to extract non-nil values from other types too.
I read, generics could help me for handling different types. How can I use generics so that I get to use following like extension to work with other types too?
getNonNil must return the extracted non-nil values of the specific type (i.e. if array is [String?] it must return [String], returns [Int] if [Int?])
Because I have to do further calculations.
What I have tried is below:
import Foundation
// Extended the collection-type so that collectiontype is constrained to having element with optional strings
extension CollectionType where Self.Generator.Element == Optional<String>{
func getNonNil() -> [String] {
// filter out all nil elements and forcefully unwrap them using map
return self.filter({$0 != nil}).map({$0!})
}
}
// Usage
let x: [String?] = ["Er", "Err", nil, "errr"]
x.getNonNil().forEach { (str) in
print(str)
}
For getNonNil you could simply use
x.flatMap { $0 }
// returns ["Er", "Err", "errr"] which is [String]
For the original question, typically you could introduce a protocol to the Optional type (e.g. via the muukii/OptionalProtocol package):
protocol OptionalProtocol {
associatedtype Wrapped
var value: Wrapped? { get }
}
extension Optional: OptionalProtocol {
public var value: Wrapped? { return self }
}
extension CollectionType where Self.Generator.Element: OptionalProtocol {
func getNonNil() -> [Self.Generator.Element.Wrapped] {
...
}
}
There's no easy way of achieving this through an extension, as you cannot introduce new generic types into extensions (although this is part of the Swift Generics Manifesto – so may well be possibly in a future version of Swift).
As #kennytm says, the simplest solution is just to use flatMap, which filters out nil:
x.flatMap{$0}.forEach { (str) in
print(str)
}
If however, you still want this as an extension, you could use a protocol workaround in order to allow you to constrain the extension to any optional element type (Swift 3):
protocol _OptionalProtocol {
associatedtype Wrapped
func _asOptional() -> Wrapped?
}
extension Optional : _OptionalProtocol {
func _asOptional() -> Wrapped? {return self}
}
extension Collection where Self.Iterator.Element : _OptionalProtocol {
func getNonNil() -> [Iterator.Element.Wrapped] {
return flatMap{$0._asOptional()}
}
}
...
let x : [String?] = ["Er", "Err", nil, "errr"]
x.getNonNil().forEach { (str) in
print(str)
}
(In Swift 3, CollectionType has been renamed to Collection, and Generator is now Iterator)
Although flatMap is almost certainly preferred in this situation, I'm only really adding this for the sake of completion.
The easiest approach is using flatMap as kennytm suggested, but if you absolutely want to know how to create such a method using generics, one approach would be to create a global method that takes in the collection as a parameter:
public func getNonNil<T, C: CollectionType where C.Generator.Element == Optional<T>>(collection: C) -> [T] {
return collection.filter({$0 != nil}).map({$0!})
}
let x: [String?] = ["Er", "Err", nil, "errr"]
print(getNonNil(x)) // returns ["Er", "Err", "errr"]
I'm experimenting with using Composition instead of Inheritance and I wanted to use diff on an array of objects that comply with a given protocol.
To do so, I implemented a protocol and made it comply with Equatable:
// Playground - noun: a place where people can play
import XCPlayground
import Foundation
protocol Field:Equatable {
var content: String { get }
}
func ==<T: Field>(lhs: T, rhs: T) -> Bool {
return lhs.content == rhs.content
}
func ==<T: Field, U: Field>(lhs: T, rhs: U) -> Bool {
return lhs.content == rhs.content
}
struct First:Field {
let content:String
}
struct Second:Field {
let content:String
}
let items:[Field] = [First(content: "abc"), Second(content: "cxz")] // 💥 boom
But I've soon discovered that:
error: protocol 'Field' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
I understand why since Swift is a type-safe language that needs to be able to know the concrete type of these objects at anytime.
After tinkering around, I ended up removing Equatable from the protocol and overloading the == operator:
// Playground - noun: a place where people can play
import XCPlayground
import Foundation
protocol Field {
var content: String { get }
}
func ==(lhs: Field, rhs: Field) -> Bool {
return lhs.content == rhs.content
}
func ==(lhs: [Field], rhs: [Field]) -> Bool {
return (lhs.count == rhs.count) && (zip(lhs, rhs).map(==).reduce(true, { $0 && $1 })) // naive, but let's go with it for the sake of the argument
}
struct First:Field {
let content:String
}
struct Second:Field {
let content:String
}
// Requirement #1: direct object comparison
print(First(content: "abc") == First(content: "abc")) // true
print(First(content: "abc") == Second(content: "abc")) // false
// Requirement #2: being able to diff an array of objects complying with the Field protocol
let array1:[Field] = [First(content: "abc"), Second(content: "abc")]
let array2:[Field] = [Second(content: "abc")]
print(array1 == array2) // false
let outcome = array1.diff(array2) // 💥 boom
error: value of type '[Field]' has no member 'diff'
From here on, I'm a bit lost to be honest. I read some great posts about type erasure but even the provided examples suffered from the same issue (which I assume is the lack of conformance to Equatable).
Am I right? And if so, how can this be done?
UPDATE:
I had to stop this experiment for a while and totally forgot about a dependency, sorry! Diff is a method provided by SwiftLCS, an implementation of the longest common subsequence (LCS) algorithm.
TL;DR:
The Field protocol needs to comply with Equatable but so far I have not been able to do this. I need to be able to create an array of objects that comply to this protocol (see the error in the first code block).
Thanks again
The problem comes from a combination of the meaning of the Equatable protocol and Swift’s support for type overloaded functions.
Let’s take a look at the Equatable protocol:
protocol Equatable
{
static func ==(Self, Self) -> Bool
}
What does this mean? Well it’s important to understand what “equatable” actually means in the context of Swift. “Equatable” is a trait of a structure or class that make it so that any instance of that structure or class can be compared for equality with any other instance of that structure or class. It says nothing about comparing it for equality with an instance of a different class or structure.
Think about it. Int and String are both types that are Equatable. 13 == 13 and "meredith" == "meredith". But does 13 == "meredith"?
The Equatable protocol only cares about when both things to be compared are of the same type. It says nothing about what happens when the two things are of different types. That’s why both arguments in the definition of ==(::) are of type Self.
Let’s look at what happened in your example.
protocol Field:Equatable
{
var content:String { get }
}
func ==<T:Field>(lhs:T, rhs:T) -> Bool
{
return lhs.content == rhs.content
}
func ==<T:Field, U:Field>(lhs:T, rhs:U) -> Bool
{
return lhs.content == rhs.content
}
You provided two overloads for the == operator. But only the first one has to do with Equatable conformance. The second overload is the one that gets applied when you do
First(content: "abc") == Second(content: "abc")
which has nothing to do with the Equatable protocol.
Here’s a point of confusion. Equability across instances of the same type is a lower requirement than equability across instances of different types when we’re talking about individually bound instances of types you want to test for equality. (Since we can assume both things being tested are of the same type.)
However, when we make an array of things that conform to Equatable, this is a higher requirement than making an array of things that can be tested for equality, since what you are saying is that every item in the array can be compared as if they were both of the same type. But since your structs are of different types, you can’t guarantee this, and so the code fails to compile.
Here’s another way to think of it.
Protocols without associated type requirements, and protocols with associated type requirements are really two different animals. Protocols without Self basically look and behave like types. Protocols with Self are traits that types themselves conform to. In essence, they go “up a level”, like a type of type. (Related in concept to metatypes.)
That’s why it makes no sense to write something like this:
let array:[Equatable] = [5, "a", false]
You can write this:
let array:[Int] = [5, 6, 7]
or this:
let array:[String] = ["a", "b", "c"]
or this:
let array:[Bool] = [false, true, false]
Because Int, String, and Bool are types. Equatable isn’t a type, it’s a type of a type.
It would make “sense” to write something like this…
let array:[Equatable] = [Int.self, String.self, Bool.self]
though this is really stretching the bounds of type-safe programming and so Swift doesn’t allow this. You’d need a fully flexible metatyping system like Python’s to express an idea like that.
So how do we solve your problem? Well, first of all realize that the only reason it makes sense to apply SwiftLCS on your array is because, at some level, all of your array elements can be reduced to an array of keys that are all of the same Equatable type. In this case, it’s String, since you can get an array keys:[String] by doing [Field](...).map{ $0.content }. Perhaps if we redesigned SwiftLCS, this would make a better interface for it.
However, since we can only compare our array of Fields directly, we need to make sure they can all be upcast to the same type, and the way to do that is with inheritance.
class Field:Equatable
{
let content:String
static func == (lhs:Field, rhs:Field) -> Bool
{
return lhs.content == rhs.content
}
init(_ content:String)
{
self.content = content
}
}
class First:Field
{
init(content:String)
{
super.init(content)
}
}
class Second:Field
{
init(content:String)
{
super.init(content)
}
}
let items:[Field] = [First(content: "abc"), Second(content: "cxz")]
The array then upcasts them all to type Field which is Equatable.
By the way, ironically, the “protocol-oriented” solution to this problem actually still involves inheritance. The SwiftLCS API would provide a protocol like
protocol LCSElement
{
associatedtype Key:Equatable
var key:Key { get }
}
We would specialize it with a superclass
class Field:LCSElement
{
let key:String // <- this is what specializes Key to a concrete type
static func == (lhs:Field, rhs:Field) -> Bool
{
return lhs.key == rhs.key
}
init(_ key:String)
{
self.key = key
}
}
and the library would use it as
func LCS<T: LCSElement>(array:[T])
{
array[0].key == array[1].key
...
}
Protocols and Inheritance are not opposites or substitutes for one another. They complement each other.
I know this is probably now what you want but the only way I know how to make it work is to introduce additional wrapper class:
struct FieldEquatableWrapper: Equatable {
let wrapped: Field
public static func ==(lhs: FieldEquatableWrapper, rhs: FieldEquatableWrapper) -> Bool {
return lhs.wrapped.content == rhs.wrapped.content
}
public static func diff(_ coll: [Field], _ otherCollection: [Field]) -> Diff<Int> {
let w1 = coll.map({ FieldEquatableWrapper(wrapped: $0) })
let w2 = otherCollection.map({ FieldEquatableWrapper(wrapped: $0) })
return w1.diff(w2)
}
}
and then you can do
let outcome = FieldEquatableWrapper.diff(array1, array2)
I don't think you can make Field to conform to Equatable at all as it is designed to be "type-safe" using Self pseudo-class. And this is one reason for the wrapper class. Unfortunately there seems to be one more issue that I don't know how to fix: I can't put this "wrapped" diff into Collection or Array extension and still make it support heterogenous [Field] array without compilation error:
using 'Field' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'Field' is not supported
If anyone knows a better solution, I'm interested as well.
P.S.
In the question you mention that
print(First(content: "abc") == Second(content: "abc")) // false
but I expect that to be true given the way you defined your == operator
Given a struct-based generic CollectionType …
struct MyCollection<Element>: CollectionType, MyProtocol {
typealias Index = MyIndex<MyCollection>
subscript(i: Index) -> Element { … }
func generate() -> IndexingGenerator<MyCollection> {
return IndexingGenerator(self)
}
}
… how would one define an Index for it …
struct MyIndex<Collection: MyProtocol>: BidirectionalIndexType {
func predecessor() -> MyIndex { … }
func successor() -> MyIndex { … }
}
… without introducing a dependency cycle of death?
The generic nature of MyIndex is necessary because:
It should work with any type of MyProtocol.
MyProtocol references Self and thus can only be used as a type constraint.
If there were forward declarations (à la Objective-C) I would just[sic!] add one for MyIndex<MyCollection> to my MyCollection<…>. Alas, there is no such thing.
A possible concrete use case would be binary trees, such as:
indirect enum BinaryTree<Element>: CollectionType, BinaryTreeType {
typealias Index = BinaryTreeIndex<BinaryTree>
case Nil
case Node(BinaryTree, Element, BinaryTree)
subscript(i: Index) -> Element { … }
}
Which would require a stack-based Index:
struct BinaryTreeIndex<BinaryTree: BinaryTreeType>: BidirectionalIndexType {
let stack: [BinaryTree]
func predecessor() -> BinaryTreeIndex { … }
func successor() -> BinaryTreeIndex { … }
}
One cannot (yet?) nest structs inside generic structs in Swift.
Otherwise I'd just move BinaryTreeIndex<…> inside BinaryTree<…>.
Also I'd prefer to have one generic BinaryTreeIndex,
which'd then work with any type of BinaryTreeType.
You cannot nest structs inside structs because they are value types. They aren’t pointers to an object, instead they hold their properties right there in the variable. Think about if a struct contained itself, what would its memory layout look like?
Forward declarations work in Objective-C because they are then used as pointers. This is why the indirect keyword was added to enums - it tells the compiler to add a level of indirection via a pointer.
In theory the same keyword could be added to structs, but it wouldn’t make much sense. You could do what indirect does by hand instead though, with a class box:
// turns any type T into a reference type
final class Box<T> {
let unbox: T
init(_ x: T) { unbox = x }
}
You could the use this to box up a struct to create, e.g., a linked list:
struct ListNode<T> {
var box: Box<(element: T, next: ListNode<T>)>?
func cons(x: T) -> ListNode<T> {
return ListNode(node: Box(element: x, next: self))
}
init() { box = nil }
init(node: Box<(element: T, next: ListNode<T>)>?)
{ box = node }
}
let nodes = ListNode().cons(1).cons(2).cons(3)
nodes.box?.unbox.element // first element
nodes.box?.unbox.next.box?.unbox.element // second element
You could turn this node directly into a collection, by conforming it to both ForwardIndexType and CollectionType, but this isn’t a good idea.
For example, they need very different implementations of ==:
the index needs to know if two indices from the same list are at the same position. It does not need the elements to conform to Equatable.
The collection needs to compare two different collections to see if they hold the same elements. It does need the elements to conform to Equatable i.e.:
func == <T where T: Equatable>(lhs: List<T>, rhs: List<T>) -> Bool {
// once the List conforms to at least SequenceType:
return lhs.elementsEqual(rhs)
}
Better to wrap it in two specific types. This is “free” – the wrappers have no overhead, just help you build the right behaviours more easily:
struct ListIndex<T>: ForwardIndexType {
let node: ListNode<T>
func successor() -> ListIndex<T> {
guard let next = node.box?.unbox.next
else { fatalError("attempt to advance past end") }
return ListIndex(node: next)
}
}
func == <T>(lhs: ListIndex<T>, rhs: ListIndex<T>) -> Bool {
switch (lhs.node.box, rhs.node.box) {
case (nil,nil): return true
case (_?,nil),(nil,_?): return false
case let (x,y): return x === y
}
}
struct List<T>: CollectionType {
typealias Index = ListIndex<T>
var startIndex: Index
var endIndex: Index { return ListIndex(node: ListNode()) }
subscript(idx: Index) -> T {
guard let element = idx.node.box?.unbox.element
else { fatalError("index out of bounds") }
return element
}
}
(no need to implement generate() – you get an indexing generator “for free” in 2.0 by implementing CollectionType)
You now have a fully functioning collection:
// in practice you would add methods to List such as
// conforming to ArrayLiteralConvertible or init from
// another sequence
let list = List(startIndex: ListIndex(node: nodes))
list.first // 3
for x in list { print(x) } // prints 3 2 1
Now all of this code looks pretty disgusting for two reasons.
One is because box gets in the way, and indirect is much better as the compiler sorts it all out for you under the hood. But it’s doing something similar.
The other is that structs are not a good solution to this. Enums are much better. In fact the code is really using an enum – that’s what Optional is. Only instead of nil (i.e. Optional.None), it would be better to have a End case for the end of the linked list. This is what we are using it for.
For more of this kind of stuff you could check out these posts.
While Airspeed Velocity's answer applies to the most common cases, my question was asking specifically about the special case of generalizing CollectionType indexing in order to be able to share a single Index implementation for all thinkable kinds of binary trees (whose recursive nature makes it necessary to make use of a stack for index-based traversals (at least for trees without a parent pointer)), which requires the Index to be specialized on the actual BinaryTree, not the Element.
The way I solved this problem was to rename MyCollection to MyCollectionStorage, revoke its CollectionType conformity and wrap it with a struct that now takes its place as MyCollection and deals with conforming to CollectionType.
To make things a bit more "real" I will refer to:
MyCollection<E> as SortedSet<E>
MyCollectionStorage<E> as BinaryTree<E>
MyIndex<T> as BinaryTreeIndex<T>
So without further ado:
struct SortedSet<Element>: CollectionType {
typealias Tree = BinaryTree<Element>
typealias Index = BinaryTreeIndex<Tree>
subscript(i: Index) -> Element { … }
func generate() -> IndexingGenerator<SortedSet> {
return IndexingGenerator(self)
}
}
struct BinaryTree<Element>: BinaryTreeType {
}
struct BinaryTreeIndex<BinaryTree: BinaryTreeType>: BidirectionalIndexType {
func predecessor() -> BinaryTreeIndex { … }
func successor() -> BinaryTreeIndex { … }
}
This way the dependency graph turns from a directed cyclic graph into a directed acyclic graph.
I have this question except for Swift. How do I use a Type variable in a generic?
I tried this:
func intType() -> Int.Type {
return Int.self
}
func test() {
var t = self.intType()
var arr = Array<t>() // Error: "'t' is not a type". Uh... yeah, it is.
}
This didn't work either:
var arr = Array<t.Type>() // Error: "'t' is not a type"
var arr = Array<t.self>() // Swift doesn't seem to even understand this syntax at all.
Is there a way to do this? I get the feeling that Swift just doesn't support it and is giving me somewhat ambiguous error messages.
Edit: Here's a more complex example where the problem can't be circumvented using a generic function header. Of course it doesn't make sense, but I have a sensible use for this kind of functionality somewhere in my code and would rather post a clean example instead of my actual code:
func someTypes() -> [Any.Type] {
var ret = [Any.Type]()
for (var i = 0; i<rand()%10; i++) {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(Int.self) }
else {ret.append(String.self) }
}
return ret
}
func test() {
var ts = self.someTypes()
for t in ts {
var arr = Array<t>()
}
}
Swift's static typing means the type of a variable must be known at compile time.
In the context of a generic function func foo<T>() { ... }, T looks like a variable, but its type is actually known at compile time based on where the function is called from. The behavior of Array<T>() depends on T, but this information is known at compile time.
When using protocols, Swift employs dynamic dispatch, so you can write Array<MyProtocol>(), and the array simply stores references to things which implement MyProtocol — so when you get something out of the array, you have access to all functions/variables/typealiases required by MyProtocol.
But if t is actually a variable of kind Any.Type, Array<t>() is meaningless since its type is actually not known at compile time. (Since Array is a generic struct, the compiler needs know which type to use as the generic parameter, but this is not possible.)
I would recommend watching some videos from WWDC this year:
Protocol-Oriented Programming in Swift
Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift
I found this slide particularly helpful for understanding protocols and dynamic dispatch:
There is a way and it's called generics. You could do something like that.
class func foo() {
test(Int.self)
}
class func test<T>(t: T.Type) {
var arr = Array<T>()
}
You will need to hint the compiler at the type you want to specialize the function with, one way or another. Another way is with return param (discarded in that case):
class func foo() {
let _:Int = test()
}
class func test<T>() -> T {
var arr = Array<T>()
}
And using generics on a class (or struct) you don't need the extra param:
class Whatever<T> {
var array = [T]() // another way to init the array.
}
let we = Whatever<Int>()
jtbandes' answer - that you can't use your current approach because Swift is statically typed - is correct.
However, if you're willing to create a whitelist of allowable types in your array, for example in an enum, you can dynamically initialize different types at runtime.
First, create an enum of allowable types:
enum Types {
case Int
case String
}
Create an Example class. Implement your someTypes() function to use these enum values. (You could easily transform a JSON array of strings into an array of this enum.)
class Example {
func someTypes() -> [Types] {
var ret = [Types]()
for _ in 1...rand()%10 {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(.Int) }
else {ret.append(.String) }
}
return ret
}
Now implement your test function, using switch to scope arr for each allowable type:
func test() {
let types = self.someTypes()
for type in types {
switch type {
case .Int:
var arr = [Int]()
arr += [4]
case .String:
var arr = [String]()
arr += ["hi"]
}
}
}
}
As you may know, you could alternatively declare arr as [Any] to mix types (the "heterogenous" case in jtbandes' answer):
var arr = [Any]()
for type in types {
switch type {
case .Int:
arr += [4]
case .String:
arr += ["hi"]
}
}
print(arr)
I would break it down with the things you already learned from the first answer. I took the liberty to refactor some code. Here it is:
func someTypes<T>(t: T.Type) -> [Any.Type] {
var ret = [Any.Type]()
for _ in 0..<rand()%10 {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(T.self) }
else {
ret.append(String.self)
}
}
return ret
}
func makeArray<T>(t: T) -> [T] {
return [T]()
}
func test() {
let ts = someTypes(Int.self)
for t in ts {
print(t)
}
}
This is somewhat working but I believe the way of doing this is very unorthodox. Could you use reflection (mirroring) instead?
Its possible so long as you can provide "a hint" to the compiler about the type of... T. So in the example below one must use : String?.
func cast<T>(_ value: Any) -> T? {
return value as? T
}
let inputValue: Any = "this is a test"
let casted: String? = cast(inputValue)
print(casted) // Optional("this is a test")
print(type(of: casted)) // Optional<String>
Why Swift doesn't just allow us to let casted = cast<String>(inputValue) I'll never know.
One annoying scenerio is when your func has no return value. Then its not always straightford to provide the necessary "hint". Lets look at this example...
func asyncCast<T>(_ value: Any, completion: (T?) -> Void) {
completion(value as? T)
}
The following client code DOES NOT COMPILE. It gives a "Generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred" error.
let inputValue: Any = "this is a test"
asyncCast(inputValue) { casted in
print(casted)
print(type(of: casted))
}
But you can solve this by providing a "hint" to compiler as follows:
asyncCast(inputValue) { (casted: String?) in
print(casted) // Optional("this is a test")
print(type(of: casted)) // Optional<String>
}