I'm reading the Sequence documentation and in an example that they use (see below) the requirements for Sequence are inferred. My question is how is it inferred. I understand how inferencing works in simpler cases but in this example I cannot understand how Swift infers things.
I see that Sequence's makeIterator method has a default implementation but I don't understand how the return value is inferred here.
Example
struct Countdown: Sequence, IteratorProtocol {
var count: Int
mutating func next() -> Int? {
if count == 0 {
return nil
} else {
defer { count -= 1 }
return count
}
}
}
Reference for types mentioned above
IteratorProtocol {
func next() -> Self.Element?
associatedtype Iterator
associatedtype Element
}
Sequence {
func makeIterator() -> Self.Iterator
associatedtype Iterator
associatedtype Element
}
Let's start with the implementation of IteratorProtocol.next. The compiler sees this implementation:
mutating func next() -> Int? {
if count == 0 {
return nil
} else {
defer { count -= 1 }
return count
}
}
And notices that it returns an Int?. Well, IteratorProtocol.next is supposed to return a Self.Element?, so it infers that IteratorProtocol.Element == Int. Now Coundown satisfies IteratorProtocol.
Note that Sequence and IteratorProtocol share the associated type Element. Once Swift figures out the witness for IteratorProtcol.Element, it's as if you declared a new type alias Element in Countdown, and it just so happens that Sequence requires that Countdown.Element to exist.
After that, the compiler infers Iterator == Self. This is so that the default implementation of makeIterator is available. However, it is quite a mystery how the compiler can infer this, because with only these information, the type can't normally be inferred, as can be shown by creating your own sequence and iterator protocols.
protocol MyIterator {
associatedtype Element
mutating func next() -> Element?
}
protocol MySequence {
associatedtype Element where Element == Iterator.Element
associatedtype Iterator : MyIterator
func makeIterator() -> Iterator
}
extension MySequence where Self == Self.Iterator {
func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
return self
}
}
struct Countdown: MySequence, MyIterator { // doesn't compile
var count: Int
mutating func next() -> Int? {
if count == 0 {
return nil
} else {
defer { count -= 1 }
return count
}
}
}
After looking into the source code, I suspect there might be some compiler magic going on, especially here:
// Provides a default associated type witness for Iterator when the
// Self type is both a Sequence and an Iterator.
extension Sequence where Self: IteratorProtocol {
// #_implements(Sequence, Iterator)
public typealias _Default_Iterator = Self
}
This seems to set a "preferred" type for Iterator to be inferred as. It seems to be saying "When Iterator can't be inferred to be anything, try Self". I can't find _Default_Iterator anywhere else, which is why I concluded it's compiler magic. The whole purpose of this is to allow you to conform to Sequence by only conforming to IteratorProtocol and implementing next, as the documentation said you can do.
Now that Iterator == Self, we have also satisfied the constraint on Element:
associatedtype Element where Self.Element == Self.Iterator.Element
Thus we have shown that Countdown conforms to Sequence.
Related
The problem is when one protocol depends on another through its associated type, compiler isn't able to infer generic types.
So, I was playing around with Swift's type erasure technique trying to become familiar with its idea. Basically it'd been pretty understandable until I got to Sequence protocol. It's known that it has an associated type - Iterator, which conforms IteratorProtocol. That said, I've been trying to achieve similar behavior in my own implementation. That's what I've done:
final class CustomAnySequence<Element>: Sequence {
class CustomAnyIterator<Element>: IteratorProtocol {
private let _next: () -> Element?
init<I: IteratorProtocol>(_ iterator: I) where I.Element == Element {
var iterator = iterator
_next = { iterator.next() }
}
func next() -> Element? {
return _next()
}
}
typealias Iterator = CustomAnyIterator<Element>
typealias Element = Iterator.Element
private let _makeIterator: () -> Iterator
init<S: Sequence>(_ sequence: S) where S.Iterator == Iterator {
_makeIterator = sequence.makeIterator
}
func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
return _makeIterator()
}
}
let sequence = CustomAnySequence([1, 2, 3])
So, the last line gives the following error: Generic parameter 'Element' could not be inferred.
Then if I try to fix it by explicitly specifying Element type:
let sequence = CustomAnySequence<Int>([1, 2, 3])
it's not making it better. The next Xcode complaint is: Generic parameter 'S' could not be inferred.
So is there my fault, or it's just too much overhead for Swift's type inference?
Actually, I've run into another possible implementation - it's using private subclass wrapping. I don't really like it (that's why I was trying to do it on my own) because there are "fatal-error-must-be-subclassed" methods in superclass's implementations, which don't contribute to clean code. Also, I'm not sure how I could implement this functionality by the initializer of CustomAnySequence (I've only found it possible by making a static method). Despite all that, that's the code:
class CustomAnySequence<Element>: Sequence {
class Iterator: IteratorProtocol {
func next() -> Element? {
fatalError("Must be overriden")
}
}
func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
fatalError("Must be overriden")
}
}
private final class CustomAnySequenceImplementation<S: Sequence>: CustomAnySequence<S.Element> {
final class IteratorImplementation: Iterator {
var wrapped: S.Iterator
init(_ wrapped: S.Iterator) {
self.wrapped = wrapped
}
override func next() -> S.Element? {
return wrapped.next()
}
}
var sequence: S
init(_ sequence: S) {
self.sequence = sequence
}
override func makeIterator() -> IteratorImplementation {
return IteratorImplementation(sequence.makeIterator())
}
}
extension CustomAnySequence {
static func make<S: Sequence>(_ sequence: S) -> CustomAnySequence<Element> where S.Element == Element {
return CustomAnySequenceImplementation<S>(sequence)
}
}
func printInts(_ sequence: CustomAnySequence<Int>) {
for element in sequence {
print(element)
}
}
printInts(CustomAnySequence.make([1, 2, 3]))
printInts(CustomAnySequence.make(Set([4, 5, 6])))
It actually does work, but it looks a bit like a boilerplate. At least, if you realize how to improve it by using an initializer, please let me know. Thank you in advance!
The problem with the first implementation is that
let sequence = CustomAnySequence([1, 2, 3])
does not satisfy the constraint in
init<S: Sequence>(_ sequence: S) where S.Iterator == Iterator
[1, 2, 3] is a sequence, but its iterator type is not your CustomAnyIterator. What you really want is to pass a sequence with the same element type, not the same iterator type:
init<S: Sequence>(_ sequence: S) where S.Element == Element
and pass sequence.makeIterator() to the init method of CustomAnyIterator.
Note also the inner class can inherit the Element type placeholder from the outer class, and that the type aliases are not really needed.
final class CustomAnySequence<Element>: Sequence {
class CustomAnyIterator: IteratorProtocol {
private let _next: () -> Element?
init<I: IteratorProtocol>(_ iterator: I) where I.Element == Element {
var iterator = iterator
_next = { iterator.next() }
}
func next() -> Element? {
return _next()
}
}
private let _makeIterator: () -> CustomAnyIterator
init<S: Sequence>(_ sequence: S) where S.Element == Element {
_makeIterator = { CustomAnyIterator(sequence.makeIterator()) }
}
func makeIterator() -> CustomAnyIterator {
return _makeIterator()
}
}
You may also consider to use a struct instead of a class.
I am currently trying to update a custom collection type to Swift 4.1.
However, when I adhere to the documentation and implement all requirements for Collection and RangeReplaceableCollection, Xcode is still complaining that my type does not conform to RangeReplaceableCollection.
Here's an mcve for the problem (generously provided by Hamish, thank you for that :)
class Foo<Element : AnyObject> {
required init() {}
private var base: [Element] = []
}
extension Foo : Collection {
typealias Index = Int
var startIndex: Index {
return base.startIndex
}
var endIndex: Index {
return base.endIndex
}
func index(after i: Index) -> Index {
return base.index(after: i)
}
subscript(index: Index) -> Element {
return base[index]
}
}
extension Foo : RangeReplaceableCollection {
func replaceSubrange<C : Collection>(
_ subrange: Range<Index>, with newElements: C
) where Element == C.Element {}
}
According to the documentation, the code should compile:
To add RangeReplaceableCollection conformance to your custom
collection, add an empty initializer and the replaceSubrange(_:with:)
method to your custom type. RangeReplaceableCollection provides
default implementations of all its other methods using this
initializer and method.
Unfortunately though, it doesn't. Instead, Xcode emits the following error message:
// error: type 'Foo<Element>' does not conform to protocol 'RangeReplaceableCollection'
// extension Foo : RangeReplaceableCollection {
// ^
// Swift.RangeReplaceableCollection:5:26: note: candidate has non-matching type '<Self, S> (contentsOf: S) -> ()' [with SubSequence = Foo<Element>.SubSequence]
// public mutating func append<S>(contentsOf newElements: S) where S : Sequence, Self.Element == S.Element
// ^
// Swift.RangeReplaceableCollection:9:26: note: protocol requires function 'append(contentsOf:)' with type '<S> (contentsOf: S) -> ()'; do you want to add a stub?
// public mutating func append<S>(contentsOf newElements: S) where S : Sequence, Self.Element == S.Element
//
To make sure it's not an error in the documentation, I checked the source code of Swift 4.1 and found the default implementation of func append<S>(contentsOf newElements: S) where S: Sequence, Element == S.Element in RangeReplaceableCollection.swift, lines 442-452:
#_inlineable
public mutating func append<S : Sequence>(contentsOf newElements: S) where S.Element == Element {
let approximateCapacity = self.count + numericCast(newElements.underestimatedCount)
self.reserveCapacity(approximateCapacity)
for element in newElements {
append(element)
}
}
Question:
Why does Xcode ask for an implementation of this function although a default implementation is provided?
How do I get my code to compile?
Why does Xcode ask for an implementation of this function although a default implementation is provided?
This is due to a bug in the TypeChecker, introduced in Swift 4.1:
[SR-7429]: Cannot conform a non-final class to a protocol with a defaulted requirement with a generic placeholder constrained to an associated type
How do I get my code to compile?
Until the bug is fixed, there's currently three ways to get it to compile.
Implement these two functions:
required init<S : Sequence>(_ elements: S) where Element == S.Element {}
func append<S : Sequence>(contentsOf newElements: S) where Element == S.Element
Mark the class as final.
Implement the collection type as a struct. For this, the required init() {} must be removed.
I am trying to implement a basic protocol extension like so:
protocol Value {
func get() -> Float
mutating func set(to:Float)
}
extension Value {
static func min(of a:Value, and b:Value) -> Float {
if a < b { //Expression type 'Bool' is ambiguous without more context
return a.get()
}else{
return b.get()
}
}
static func < (a:Value, b:Value) -> Bool {
return a.get() < b.get()
}
}
At the if clause the compiler says:Expression type 'Bool' is ambiguous without more context. Why doesn't this work?
As touched on in this Q&A, there's a difference between operator overloads implemented as static members and operator overloads implemented as top-level functions. static members take an additional (implicit) self parameter, which the compiler needs to be able to infer.
So how is the value of self inferred? Well, it has to be done from either the operands or return type of the overload. For a protocol extension, this means one of those types needs to be Self. Bear in mind that you can't directly call an operator on a type (i.e you can't say (Self.<)(a, b)).
Consider the following example:
protocol Value {
func get() -> Float
}
extension Value {
static func < (a: Value, b: Value) -> Bool {
print("Being called on conforming type: \(self)")
return a.get() < b.get()
}
}
struct S : Value {
func get() -> Float { return 0 }
}
let value: Value = S()
print(value < value) // Ambiguous reference to member '<'
What's the value of self in the call to <? The compiler can't infer it (really I think it should error directly on the overload as it's un-callable). Bear in mind that self at static scope in a protocol extension must be a concrete conforming type; it can't just be Value.self (as static methods in protocol extensions are only available to call on concrete conforming types, not on the protocol type itself).
We can fix both the above example, and your example by defining the overload as a top-level function instead:
protocol Value {
func get() -> Float
}
func < (a: Value, b: Value) -> Bool {
return a.get() < b.get()
}
struct S : Value {
func get() -> Float { return 0 }
}
let value: Value = S()
print(value < value) // false
This works because now we don't need to infer a value for self.
We could have also given the compiler a way to infer the value of self, by making one or both of the parameters take Self:
protocol Value {
func get() -> Float
}
extension Value {
static func < (a: Self, b: Self) -> Bool {
print("Being called on conforming type: \(self)")
return a.get() < b.get()
}
}
struct S : Value {
func get() -> Float { return 0 }
}
let s = S()
print(s < s)
// Being called on conforming type: S
// false
The compiler can now infer self from the static type of operands. However, as said above, this needs to be a concrete type, so you can't deal with heterogenous Value operands (you could work with one operand taking a Value; but not both as then there'd be no way to infer self).
Although note that if you're providing a default implementation of <, you should probably also provide a default implementation of ==. Unless you have a good reason not to, I would also advise you make these overloads take homogenous concrete operands (i.e parameters of type Self), such that they can provide a default implementation for Comparable.
Also rather than having get() and set(to:) requirements, I would advise a settable property requirement instead:
// Not deriving from Comparable could be useful if you need to use the protocol as
// an actual type; however note that you won't be able to access Comparable stuff,
// such as the auto >, <=, >= overloads from a protocol extension.
protocol Value {
var floatValue: Double { get set }
}
extension Value {
static func == (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
return lhs.floatValue == rhs.floatValue
}
static func < (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
return lhs.floatValue < rhs.floatValue
}
}
Finally, if Comparable conformance is essential for conformance to Value, you should make it derive from Comparable:
protocol Value : Comparable {
var floatValue: Double { get set }
}
You shouldn't need a min(of:and:) function in either case, as when the conforming type conforms to Comparable, it can use the top-level min(_:_:) function.
You can't write
if a < b {
because a and b have type Value which is NOT Comparable.
However you can compare the float value associated to a and b
if a.get() < b.get() {
If you want to be able to make types that can use operators such as >, <, ==, etc., they have to conform to the Comparable protocol:
protocol Value: Comparable {
func get() -> Float
mutating func set(to: Float)
}
This comes with more restrictions though. You will have to change all the Value types in the protocol extension to Self:
extension Value {
static func min(of a: Self, and b: Self) -> Float {
if a < b { //Expression type 'Bool' is ambiguous without more context
return a.get()
}else{
return b.get()
}
}
static func < (a: Self, b: Self) -> Bool {
return a.get() < b.get()
}
}
The Self types get replaced with the type that implements the protocol. So if I implemented Value on a type Container, the methods signatures would look like this:
class Container: Value {
static func min(of a: Container, and b: Container) -> Float
static func < (a: Container, b: Container) -> Bool
}
As a side note, if you want Value to conform to Comparable, you might want to also add the == operator to the Value extension:
static func <(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
return lhs.get() < rhs.get()
}
I am learning swift and playing with Xcode.
and I always dig into the definitions. I have seen that:
public protocol GeneratorType {
typealias Element
#warn_unused_result
public mutating func next() -> Self.Element?
}
A struct that conforming this protocol:
public struct IndexingGenerator<Elements : Indexable> : GeneratorType, SequenceType {
public init(_ elements: Elements)
public mutating func next() -> Elements._Element?
}
I know 'Self' means that returning the conforming type. But what does 'Self.Element' mean?
and the function that implemented the requirement that returning 'Elements._Element?', I can’t see 'Elements._Element?' is equal to 'Self.Element?'.
Can anyone explain to me this?
and tell me more about this. thank you.
Self.Element refers to the concrete type that any type implementing GeneratorType protocol will declare as its Element typealias.
For example, in this generator of Fibonacci numbers:
struct Fibonacci: GeneratorType {
typealias Element = Int
private var value: Int = 1
private var previous: Int = 0
mutating func next() -> Element? {
let newValue = value + previous
previous = value
value = newValue
return previous
}
}
... you implement GeneratorType protocol and indicate what will be its Element typealias (Int in this case), and that's the type that generator's next() will be returning (well, actually the optional of that type).
Quite often, though, you would not have to explicitly specify typealiases when implementing parametrised protocols, as Swift is smart enough to infer them for you. E.g. for the Fibonacci numbers generator from the above example the following will also do:
struct Fibonacci: GeneratorType {
private var value: Int = 1
private var previous: Int = 0
mutating func next() -> Int? {
let newValue = value + previous
previous = value
value = newValue
return previous
}
}
... Swift knows from the signature of next() that it returns Int?, and that GeneratorType implementors also must have next() in their to-do list, and that these methods must return Element? types. So, Swift just puts 2 and 2 together, and infers that Element? must be the same thing as Int?, and therefore Element == Int.
About this:
public struct IndexingGenerator<Elements : Indexable> : GeneratorType, SequenceType {
public init(_ elements: Elements)
public mutating func next() -> Elements._Element?
}
Here we have four things going on:
We declare generic type IndexingGenerator that takes a parameter-type called Elements.
This Elements type has a constraint that it must implement Indexable protocol.
The generator that we implement is supposed to return values of the type that is accessible via Indexable interface of Elements, which is known to IndexingGenerator via dot-syntax as Elements._Element.
Swift infers that Element of IndexingGenerator is the same thing as Elements._Element.
So, essentially the above delclaration is equivalent to:
public struct IndexingGenerator<Elements : Indexable> : GeneratorType, SequenceType {
public typealias Element = Elements._Element
public init(_ elements: Elements)
public mutating func next() -> Element?
}
Finally, if curious why _Element and not just Element like in GeneratorType, here is what they write in the open-source Swift repository (under swift/stdlib/public/core/Collection.swift):
The declaration of _Element and subscript here is a trick used to break a cyclic conformance/deduction that Swift can't handle. We need something other than a CollectionType.Generator.Element that can be used as IndexingGenerator<T>'s Element. Here we arrange for the CollectionType itself to have an Element type that's deducible from its subscript. Ideally we'd like to constrain this Element to be the same as CollectionType.Generator.Element, but we have no way of expressing it today.
I wondered why map() and filter() in SequenceType return both an Array.
Actually, I don't think that's necessary. Returning a sequence again feels much more sensible to me.
However, I got stuck when trying to add sequential versions. Here's my attempt with map:
extension SequenceType {
func seqMap<T, S: SequenceType where S.Generator.Element == T>(
transform: Self.Generator.Element -> T) -> S
{
var sourceGen = generate()
let tGen: AnyGenerator<T> = anyGenerator {
if let el = sourceGen.next() {
return transform(el)
} else {
return nil
}
}
return AnySequence { tGen }
}
}
XCode tells me at the last return statement the following error:
cannot invoke initializer for type 'AnySequence<T>' with an argument list of type '(() -> AnyGenerator<T>)'
note: overloads for 'AnySequence<T>' exist with these partially matching parameter lists: (S), (() -> G)
Actually, my tGen is of type () -> G, so why does XCode think it is ambiguous?
The problem becomes more apparent if you split the return statement:
let tSeq = AnySequence { tGen }
return tSeq // error: cannot convert return expression of type 'AnySequence<T>' to return type 'S'
The compiler would infer the placeholder type S from the context
of a method call, and that could be any sequence
type with element type T, and not necessarily an AnySequence.
Here is a simple example demonstrating the same problem:
protocol MyProtocol { }
struct MyType { }
extension MyType : MyProtocol { }
func foo<P : Protocol>() -> P {
return MyType() // error: cannot convert return expression of type 'MyType' to return type 'P'
}
To solve the problem, change the return type to AnySequence<T>
and drop the generic type S:
extension SequenceType {
func seqMap<T>(transform: Self.Generator.Element -> T) -> AnySequence<T>
{
var sourceGen = generate()
let tGen: AnyGenerator<T> = anyGenerator {
if let el = sourceGen.next() {
return transform(el)
} else {
return nil
}
}
return AnySequence { tGen }
}
}
which can be written more compactly as
extension SequenceType {
func seqMap<T>(transform: Self.Generator.Element -> T) -> AnySequence<T>
{
var sourceGen = generate()
return AnySequence(anyGenerator {
sourceGen.next().map(transform)
})
}
}
using the map() method of the Optional type.
But note that SequenceType already has a lazy method which returns
a LazySequenceType:
/// A sequence containing the same elements as a `Base` sequence, but
/// on which some operations such as `map` and `filter` are
/// implemented lazily.
///
/// - See also: `LazySequenceType`
public struct LazySequence<Base : SequenceType>
and you can use
someSequence.lazy.map { ... }
to get a (lazily evaluated) sequence of the mapped values.