I can't see where in the Swift language is the facility to pass a class object to a function yet prevent that function from mutating the object by either calling functions that will implicitly mutate it or setting public variables. I'm gathering that this facility just does not exist, can anyone confirm?
That is to say, all objects are always mutable everywhere they can be seen.
This is extremely common throughout Cocoa. You create an immutable class and a mutable subclass. For examples, see AVComposition/AVMutableComposition, CBService/CBMutableService, CNContact/CNMutableContact.
In ObjC, this is common practice with collections as well (arrays, dictionaries, etc), but since those are value types in Swift, there's no need to use the classes (NSArray/NSMutableArray).
In Swift, rather than creating two classes, you create an immutable protocol and a class:
protocol Person: AnyObject {
var name: String { get }
var address: String { get }
}
class MutablePerson: Person {
var name: String = ""
var address: String = ""
}
Now, any function that accept Person will have an immutable object, and any function that accepts MutablePerson will be able to mutate it. This is a general pattern you can use to give different parts of your program access to different slices of the object's API. It's much more general and flexible than just const.
That said, this is not as common a pattern in Swift as it is in ObjC, since in most cases where this is useful, the type should be a struct anyway. But it is absolutely available if needed.
To your question about doing this with two classes, as in ObjC, it's possible, as long as you define both in the same file. It's just a bit tedious:
public class Person {
public fileprivate(set) var name: String = ""
public fileprivate(set) var address: String = ""
}
public class MutablePerson: Person {
public override var name: String {
get { super.name }
set { super.name = newValue }
}
public override var address: String {
get { super.address }
set { super.address = newValue }
}
}
It's possible a property wrapper could improve this, but I haven't been able to figure out how.
There's no way I can think of to allow usage of methods, but properties are no problem**. Just use an Immutable as a function parameter.
final class Class {
var property = true
}
var object = Immutable(Class())
object.property = false // Cannot assign to property: 'object' is immutable
/// An affordance for accessing the properties of an object
/// without the ability to mutate them.
#dynamicMemberLookup
public struct Immutable<Object: AnyObject> {
private let object: Object
}
// MARK: - public
public extension Immutable {
init(_ object: Object) {
self.object = object
}
subscript<Value>(dynamicMember keyPath: KeyPath<Object, Value>) -> Value {
object[keyPath: keyPath]
}
}
** The getters could be mutating, and they could return mutating closures. 😜 But that's an issue with the protocol approach as well. The best that we can do right now is a generally accurate hack.
What you are looking for are value types (such as structs). If you mutate any properties of a value type, you mutate the instance itself.
This means that when you pass a value type to a function, the function won't be able to mutate any of the properties of said value type.
On the other hand, classes are reference types, so mutating any of their properties doesn't mutate the class instance itself. Because of this, you cannot ban functions from modifying mutable properties of the class (unless you make them setter of said properties private).
Related
I would like to make my class in Swift iterable.
My goal is to be able to create a class called Contact that holds properties such as the givenName, familyName, and middleName, like iOS CNContact. I would like to be able to have a class function that compares two instances of the class Contact, and finds which property the two contact objects have that match, so that say if both contacts have the same value for the givenName property, then the class function returns the result.
Here is a sample code:
class Contact {
static func compare(left: Contact, right: Contact) {
for property in left.properties {
if property == right.property {
// match is found
}
}
}
var givenName: String = ""
var familyName: String = ""
var middleName: String = ""
private var properties = [givenName, familyName, middleName]
}
let left = Contact()
let right = Contact()
Contact.compare(left: left, right: right)
I found posts that used mirroring and reflection, but I want to use Sequence and IteratorProtocol. I suspect there is already the ability to do exactly what I want to do. It seems to be a logical need that would arise.
What is the way to do this that has a balance between simplicity and the ability to address common needs to iterate through the instance properties of a class. An enumeration can be declared with given has values. Is there a way to make that work for this purpose? Is there a protocol that a class can use that assigns a hash value or other identifiable value that would allow for a sequential order to iterate through the properties of a class?
I was able to find posts and documentation that allowed me to get as far as the following code in playground that generated the following in debug window:
struct Name: Sequence {
typealias Iterator = NameIterator
typealias Element = Name
typealias Name = String
var name = "<name>"
func makeIterator() -> NameIterator {
return NameIterator()
}
}
struct NameIterator: IteratorProtocol {
typealias Iterator = String
typealias Element = Name
typealias Name = String
mutating func next() -> Name? {
let nextName = Name()
return nextName
}
}
let nameStrings = ["Debbie", "Harper", "Indivan", "Juniella"]
for nameString in nameStrings {
print(nameString)
}
Debbie
Harper
Indivan
Juniella
If you really don't want to use mirror, a straightforward way is to cycle through a list of key paths. This is particularly easy in your case because the properties are all strings:
class Contact {
static let properties = [\Contact.givenName, \Contact.familyName, \Contact.middleName]
static func compare(left: Contact, right: Contact) {
for property in properties {
if left[keyPath: property] == right[keyPath: property] {
print("got a match"); return
}
}
print("no match")
}
var givenName: String = ""
var familyName: String = ""
var middleName: String = ""
}
I think there's some confusion going on here.
The Sequence protocol and friends (IteratorProtocol, Collection, etc.) exist for you to be able to define custom sequences/collections that can leverage the existing collection algorithms (e.g. if you conform to Sequence, your type gets map "for free"). It has absolutely nothing to do with accessing object properties. If you want to do that, the only official reflection API in Swift is Mirror.
It's possible to...
...just Mirror, to create a standard collection (e.g. Array) of properties of an object
...just Sequence/Collection, to create a custom collection object that lists the property values of an object from hard-coded keypaths
...or you can use both, together, to create a custom collection object that uses Mirror to automatically list the properties of an object and their values
As the question may seem duplicated, I point out first that this is not asking for how to get a class type from an instance ( answer is using type(of:) ).
protocol Owner {
static func name() -> String
}
extension Owner {
static func name() -> String {
return "\(self)"
}
}
class Foo {
var ownerName: String
init(with owner: Owner.Type) {
ownerName = owner.name()
}
}
class Bar: Owner {
var foo = Foo(with: Bar.self)
}
The code above simply works, but imagine that I want to rename the class Bar to BarBar then I need to change the initialization of foo to Foo(with: BarBar.self) manually. Is there any keyword that can be used instead of ClassName.self (e.g. Bar.self BarBar.self) to get the class type? Something like Self or Class (they don't compile actually)
My guess is that your whole question is a red herring and that type(of:self) is exactly what you want to say. In that case, the problem is merely that var foo is declared as an instance property. There are special rules for when you are allowed to say self while initializing an instance property (rightly, because self is exactly what does not yet exist during initialization). However, there are ways around that, as I have explained elsewhere; you can make this a computed instance property, or a lazy instance property, which is initialized by a function to be executed later, and then you are allowed to say type(of:self).
Example:
internal protocol PropertyProtocol {
var property: Self {
get
}
}
The only option I see to implement it, let us say in a class is
internal final class PropertyClass: PropertyProtocol {
let property: PropertyClass
internal init(otherOne pOtherOne: PropertyClass) {
self.property = pOtherOne
}
}
But then I do not see a possibility to use it.
let test: PropertyProtocol = PropertyProtocol(...) // hmm, how?
Does Self in a protocol property type declaration always have to be optional?
As a stored property, indeed it would have to be optional for you to create an instance, as each instance would require the stored property to be assigned during initialisation – leading to recursive behaviour. Therefore Self doesn't make too much sense as a stored property; it's really more designed to be used with methods or calculated properties.
Depending on what you're using this for (seems like a fairly hypothetical example), you could implement a calculated property like so:
protocol PropertyProtocol {
var property : Self { get }
}
final class PropertyClass : PropertyProtocol {
var property : PropertyClass {
get {
return // ...
}
set {
// ...
}
}
}
That way the class itself can manage the creation of the property when it's accessed, preventing the recursive behaviour of requiring it to be assigned during initialisation.
I would like my protocol to declare that there is a read/write property available. I have attempted it, but this does not work:
protocol EdibleThing {
var eaten: Bool { get set }
}
class Pickle: EdibleThing { var eaten = false }
class RusticGrapefruit: EdibleThing { var eaten = false }
class Jar {
let contents: [EdibleThing] = [Pickle(), RusticGrapefruit()]
var nextItem: EdibleThing {
return contents.last ?? Pickle() // Lazy pickle generation technology
}
func eat() {
let food = nextItem
food.eaten = true // (!) ERROR: Cannot assign to result of this expression
}
}
What am I doing wrong? I think I've declared that the protocol has a get/set var called eaten, so why can't I set it?
The protocol might be implemented by either classes and structs - that prevents you from changing the internal status of an instance of a class or struct implementing that protocol using an immutable variable.
To fix the problem you have to either declare the food variable as mutable:
func eat() {
var food = nextItem
food.eaten = true // (!) ERROR: Cannot assign to result of this expression
}
or declare the EdibleThing protocol to be implementable by classes only:
protocol EdibleThing : class {
var eaten: Bool { get set }
}
Note that this happens because food is a variable of EdibleThing type - the compiler doesn't know if the actual instance is a value or reference type, so it raises an error. If you make it a variable of a class type, like this:
let food: Pickle = nextItem as! Pickle
the compiler knows without any ambiguity that it's a reference type, and in that case it allows the assignment. But I guess that breaks your app logic... so consider it just as an example
You're mutating food.
Replace let food = nextItem with var food = nextItem
The problem is that you can't mutate a property on a value type defined by let.
Even though both of RusticGrapefruit and Pickle are class implementations (reference types), the protocol could be assigned to a value type like a struct. The compiler detects a potential problem and stops us.
Two solutions:
Change let to var (in my case, this would mean changing a lot of code that refers to objects of this type. Also, I like the semantic value and possible compiler optimizations from let)
Declare the protocol as only valid for classes: protocol EdibleThing: class { }
Building on previous question which got resolved, but it led to another problem. If protocol/class types are stored in a collection, retrieving and instantiating them back throws an error. a hypothetical example is below. The paradigm is based on "Program to Interface not an implementation" What does it mean to "program to an interface"?
instantiate from protocol.Type reference dynamically at runtime
public protocol ISpeakable {
init()
func speak()
}
class Cat : ISpeakable {
required init() {}
func speak() {
println("Meow");
}
}
class Dog : ISpeakable {
required init() {}
func speak() {
println("Woof");
}
}
//Test class is not aware of the specific implementations of ISpeakable at compile time
class Test {
func instantiateAndCallSpeak<T: ISpeakable>(Animal:T.Type) {
let animal = Animal()
animal.speak()
}
}
// Users of the Test class are aware of the specific implementations at compile/runtime
//works
let t = Test()
t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(Cat.self)
t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(Dog.self)
//doesn't work if types are retrieved from a collection
//Uncomment to show Error - IAnimal.Type is not convertible to T.Type
var animals: [ISpeakable.Type] = [Cat.self, Dog.self, Cat.self]
for animal in animals {
//t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(animal) //throws error
}
for (index:Int, value:ISpeakable.Type) in enumerate(animals) {
//t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(value) //throws error
}
Edit - My current workaround to iterate through collection but of course it's limiting as the api has to know all sorts of implementations. The other limitation is subclasses of these types (for instance PersianCat, GermanShepherd) will not have their overridden functions called or I go to Objective-C for rescue (NSClassFromString etc.) or wait for SWIFT to support this feature.
Note (background): these types are pushed into array by users of the utility and for loop is executed on notification
var animals: [ISpeakable.Type] = [Cat.self, Dog.self, Cat.self]
for Animal in animals {
if Animal is Cat.Type {
if let AnimalClass = Animal as? Cat.Type {
var instance = AnimalClass()
instance.speak()
}
} else if Animal is Dog.Type {
if let AnimalClass = Animal as? Dog.Type {
var instance = AnimalClass()
instance.speak()
}
}
}
Basically the answer is: correct, you can't do that. Swift needs to determine the concrete types of type parameters at compile time, not at runtime. This comes up in a lot of little corner cases. For instance, you can't construct a generic closure and store it in a variable without type-specifying it.
This can be a little clearer if we boil it down to a minimal test case
protocol Creatable { init() }
struct Object : Creatable { init() {} }
func instantiate<T: Creatable>(Thing: T.Type) -> T {
return Thing()
}
// works. object is of type "Object"
let object = instantiate(Object.self) // (1)
// 'Creatable.Type' is not convertible to 'T.Type'
let type: Creatable.Type = Object.self
let thing = instantiate(type) // (2)
At line 1, the compiler has a question: what type should T be in this instance of instantiate? And that's easy, it should be Object. That's a concrete type, so everything is fine.
At line 2, there's no concrete type that Swift can make T. All it has is Creatable, which is an abstract type (we know by code inspection the actual value of type, but Swift doesn't consider the value, just the type). It's ok to take and return protocols, but it's not ok to make them into type parameters. It's just not legal Swift today.
This is hinted at in the Swift Programming Language: Generic Parameters and Arguments:
When you declare a generic type, function, or initializer, you specify the type parameters that the generic type, function, or initializer can work with. These type parameters act as placeholders that are replaced by actual concrete type arguments when an instance of a generic type is created or a generic function or initializer is called. (emphasis mine)
You'll need to do whatever you're trying to do another way in Swift.
As a fun bonus, try explicitly asking for the impossible:
let thing = instantiate(Creatable.self)
And... swift crashes.
From your further comments, I think closures do exactly what you're looking for. You've made your protocol require trivial construction (init()), but that's an unnecessary restriction. You just need the caller to tell the function how to construct the object. That's easy with a closure, and there is no need for type parameterization at all this way. This isn't a work-around; I believe this is the better way to implement that pattern you're describing. Consider the following (some minor changes to make the example more Swift-like):
// Removed init(). There's no need for it to be trivially creatable.
// Cocoa protocols that indicate a method generally end in "ing"
// (NSCopying, NSCoding, NSLocking). They do not include "I"
public protocol Speaking {
func speak()
}
// Converted these to structs since that's all that's required for
// this example, but it works as well for classes.
struct Cat : Speaking {
func speak() {
println("Meow");
}
}
struct Dog : Speaking {
func speak() {
println("Woof");
}
}
// Demonstrating a more complex object that is easy with closures,
// but hard with your original protocol
struct Person: Speaking {
let name: String
func speak() {
println("My name is \(name)")
}
}
// Removed Test class. There was no need for it in the example,
// but it works fine if you add it.
// You pass a closure that returns a Speaking. We don't care *how* it does
// that. It doesn't have to be by construction. It could return an existing one.
func instantiateAndCallSpeak(builder: () -> Speaking) {
let animal = builder()
animal.speak()
}
// Can call with an immediate form.
// Note that Cat and Dog are not created here. They are not created until builder()
// is called above. #autoclosure would avoid the braces, but I typically avoid it.
instantiateAndCallSpeak { Cat() }
instantiateAndCallSpeak { Dog() }
// Can put them in an array, though we do have to specify the type here. You could
// create a "typealias SpeakingBuilder = () -> Speaking" if that came up a lot.
// Again note that no Speaking objects are created here. These are closures that
// will generate objects when applied.
// Notice how easy it is to pass parameters here? These don't all have to have the
// same initializers.
let animalBuilders: [() -> Speaking] = [{ Cat() } , { Dog() }, { Person(name: "Rob") }]
for animal in animalBuilders {
instantiateAndCallSpeak(animal)
}