Here's an example:
protocol Feed {
func items<T>() -> [T]? where T: FeedItem
}
protocol FeedItem {}
class FeedModel: Feed, Decodable {
func items<T>() -> [T]? where T : FeedItem {
return [FeedItemModel]() // Error: Cannot convert return expression of type '[FeedItemModel]' to return type '[T]?'
}
}
class FeedItemModel: FeedItem, Decodable {}
Why does it:
A) try to convert to T when T is a generic, not a type?
B) does not recognize FeedItemModel as conforming to FeedItem?
func items<T>() -> [T]? where T : FeedItem
This says that the caller can define T to be whatever they want, as long as T conforms to FeedItemModel, and this function will return an optional array of those.
FeedItemModel is something that conforms to FeedItem, but it is not promised to be the type T that the caller requested.
As an example, consider:
class OtherModel: FeedItem {}
According to your function signature, I can do this:
let ms: [OtherModel]? = FeedModel().items()
But your function won't then return [OtherModel]? to me. I suspect you don't actually mean this to be generic. I expect you mean:
func items() -> [FeedItemModel]?
or possibly
func items() -> [FeedItem]?
(Though I would think very hard before doing the latter one and make sure that the protocol existential is really doing useful work here.)
A)
T is a type, a homogenous concrete type specified at runtime.
Imaging T is class Foo : FeedItem it's obvious that FeedItemModel cannot be converted to Foo
B)
FeedItemModel is recognized as conforming to FeedItem but this is irrelevant.
It's often a mix-up of generics and protocols. Generic types are not covariant. If you need covariant types use an associated type.
Either you can ignore generics because because it only applies to that one function and it isn't needed since directly saying that the return type is [FeedItem]? yields the same result
protocol Feed {
func items() -> [FeedItem]?
}
class FeedModel: Feed, Decodable {
func items() -> [FeedItem]? {
return [OtherModel]()
}
}
If you on the other hand want a generic protocol then you should use a associated type
protocol Feed2 {
associatedtype T: FeedItem
func items() -> [T]?
}
class FeedModel2: Feed2, Decodable {
typealias T = FeedItemModel
func items() -> [T]? {
return [FeedItemModel]()
}
}
Related
what is a difference between using generic with function or using associatedType in swift protocols?
protocol Repository {
associatedtype T
func add(data : T) -> Bool
}
and
protocol Repository {
func add<T>(data : T) -> Bool
}
Defined associated type makes classes which conform protocol strong typed. This provide compile-time error handling.
In other hand, generic type makes classes which conform protocol more flexible.
For example:
protocol AssociatedRepository {
associatedtype T
func add(data : T) -> Bool
}
protocol GenericRepository {
func add<T>(data : T) -> Bool
}
class A: GenericRepository {
func add<T>(data : T) -> Bool {
return true
}
}
class B: AssociatedRepository {
typealias T = UIViewController
func add(data : T) -> Bool {
return true
}
}
class A could put any class into add(data:) function, so you need to makes your sure that function handle all cases.
A().add(data: UIView())
A().add(data: UIViewController())
both would be valid
But for class B you will get compile-time error when you will try to put anything except UIViewController
B().add(data: UIView()) // compile-time error here
B().add(data: UIViewController())
An associatedtype is a static type in struct/class which adopts the protocol either via a typealias declaration or via type inference. The type is always the same for that class.
A generic can be anything, even different types in the same class.
This case
protocol Repository {
func add<T>(data : T) -> Bool
}
Is understood by compiler like: "Any type that is fed to the func add will be acceptable and the result of the function will be Bool"
But this
protocol Repository {
associatedtype T
func add(data : T) -> Bool
}
is understood by compiler like: "func add will accept only the type that is defined in the typealias T = ... and return Bool"
In the second case you restrict generic parameters only to the typealiased types.
Another important feature shows up when you use generic parameters in multiple functions of the protocol. In that case it guarantees that func add<T> and func multiply<T> will have the same type T. In case of generic functions it is not guaranteed.
protocol Calculable {
associatedtype T
func add<T>(a: T, b: T) -> T
func multiply<T>(a: T, b: T) -> T
}
// In this case you know that T is the same for all functions
protocol CalculableDifferent {
func add<T>(a: T, b: T) -> T
func multiply<T>(a: T, b: T) -> T
}
// In this case add can accept One type, when multiply can accept Another
I'm not sure what where clause can restrict a generic parameter to be a protocol that inherits from a certain protocol.
protocol Edible {}
protocol PetFood: Edible {}
struct CatFood: PetFood {}
struct Rocks {}
func eat<T: Edible>(_ item: T) -> String {
return "Just ate some \(type(of: item))"
}
let food: CatFood = CatFood()
eat(food) //"Just ate some CatFood"
let moreFood: PetFood = CatFood()
//eat(moreFood) //Cannot invoke 'eat' with an argument list of type '(PetFood)'
func eatAnything<T>(_ item: T) -> String {
return "Just ate some \(type(of: item))"
}
eatAnything(moreFood) //This works, obviously
eatAnything(Rocks()) //But, of course, so does this...
Is there any way to restrict eatAnything() to allow protocol types, but only those that inherit from Edible?
In your example, the definition of a generic function does not make any sense because it can be replaced by:
func eat(_ item: Edible) -> String {
return "Just ate some \(type(of: item))"
}
But if you really want to use generic function then you should know:
Definition of generic function
func eat<T: Edible>(_ item: T) -> String { ... }
func eat<T>(_ item: T) -> String where T: Edible { ... }
func eat<T: Edible>(_ item: T) -> String where T: Equatable { ... }
Protocols are dynamic types, so they use late binding. Generic code is converted to normal during compilation and requires early binding
Early Binding (compile time): type is known before the variable is exercised during run-time, usually through a static, declarative means
Late Binding (runtime): type is unknown until the variable is exercised during run-time; usually through assignment but there are other means to coerce a type; dynamically typed languages call this an underlying feature
Generic functions can be defined with the type to be protocol-compatible, but this functions can't pass the this protocol as type, because the compiler doesn't know what that type is T. Passed to generic function type must be a specific type (class, struct, enum, ...)
let a: [Int] = [1,2,3]
let b: [CustomStringConvertible] = [1, "XYZ"]
a.index(of: 2) // 1
b.index(of: "XYZ") // error
I'm trying to add functionality to an NSManagedObject via a protocol. I added a default implementation which works fine, but as soon as I try to extend my subclass with the protocol it tells me that parts of it are not implemented, even though I added the default implementation.
Anyone having Ideas of what I'm doing wrong?
class Case: NSManagedObject {
}
protocol ObjectByIdFetchable {
typealias T
typealias I
static var idName: String { get }
static func entityName() -> String
static func objectWithId(ids:[I], context: NSManagedObjectContext) -> [T]
}
extension ObjectByIdFetchable where T: NSManagedObject, I: AnyObject {
static func objectWithId(ids:[I], context: NSManagedObjectContext) -> [T] {
let r = NSFetchRequest(entityName: self.entityName())
r.predicate = NSPredicate(format: "%K IN %#", idName, ids)
return context.typedFetchRequest(r)
}
}
extension Case: ObjectByIdFetchable {
typealias T = Case
typealias I = Int
class var idName: String {
return "id"
}
override class func entityName() -> String {
return "Case"
}
}
The error I get is Type Case doesn't conform to protocol ObjectByIdFetchable
Help very much appreciated.
We'll use a more scaled-down example (below) to shed light on what goes wrong here. The key "error", however, is that Case cannot make use of the default implementation of objectWithId() for ... where T: NSManagedObject, I: AnyObject; since type Int does not conform to the type constraint AnyObject. The latter is used to represent instances of class types, whereas Int is a value type.
AnyObject can represent an instance of any class type.
Any can represent an instance of any type at all, including function types.
From the Language Guide - Type casting.
Subsequently, Case does not have access to any implementation of the blueprinted objectWithId() method, and does hence not conform to protocol ObjectByIdFetchable.
Default extension of Foo to T:s conforming to Any works, since Int conforms to Any:
protocol Foo {
typealias T
static func bar()
static func baz()
}
extension Foo where T: Any {
static func bar() { print ("bar") }
}
class Case : Foo {
typealias T = Int
class func baz() {
print("baz")
}
}
The same is, however, not true for extending Foo to T:s conforming to AnyObject, as Int does not conform to the class-type general AnyObject:
protocol Foo {
typealias T
static func bar()
static func baz()
}
/* This will not be usable by Case below */
extension Foo where T: AnyObject {
static func bar() { print ("bar") }
}
/* Hence, Case does not conform to Foo, as it contains no
implementation for the blueprinted method bar() */
class Case : Foo {
typealias T = Int
class func baz() {
print("baz")
}
}
Edit addition: note that if you change (as you've posted in you own answer)
typealias T = Int
into
typealias T = NSNumber
then naturally Case has access to the default implementation of objectWithId() for ... where T: NSManagedObject, I: AnyObject, as NSNumber is class type, which conforms to AnyObject.
Finally, note from the examples above that the keyword override is not needed for implementing methods blueprinted in a protocol (e.g., entityName() method in your example above). The extension of Case is an protocol extension (conforming to ObjectByIdFetchable by implementing blueprinted types and methods), and not really comparable to subclassing Case by a superclass (in which case you might want to override superclass methods).
I found the solution to the problem. I thought it's the typealias T which is the reason for not compiling. That's actually not true, it's I which I said to AnyObject, the interesting thing is that Int is not AnyObject. I had to change Int to NSNumber
Consider the following:
protocol Foo {
typealias A
func hello() -> A
}
protocol FooBar: Foo {
func hi() -> A
}
extension FooBar {
func hello() -> A {
return hi()
}
}
class FooBarClass: FooBar {
typealias A = String
func hi() -> String {
return "hello world"
}
}
This code compiles. But if I comment out explicit definition of associated type typealias A = String, then for some reason, swiftc fails to infer the type.
I'm sensing this has to do with two protocols sharing the same associated type but without a direct assertion through, for example, type parameterization (maybe associated type is not powerful/mature enough?), which makes it ambiguous for type inference.
I'm not sure if this is a bug / immaturity of the language, or maybe, I'm missing some nuances in protocol extension which rightfully lead to this behaviour.
Can someone shed some light on this?
look at this example
protocol Foo {
typealias A
func hello() -> A
}
protocol FooBar: Foo {
typealias B
func hi() -> B
}
extension FooBar {
func hello() -> B {
return hi()
}
}
class FooBarClass: FooBar {
//typealias A = String
func hi() -> String {
return "hello world"
}
}
with generics
class FooBarClass<T>: FooBar {
var t: T?
func hi() -> T? {
return t
}
}
let fbc: FooBarClass<Int> = FooBarClass()
fbc.t = 10
fbc.hello() // 10
fbc.hi() // 10
Providing explicit values for associated types in a protocol is required for conformance to said protocol. This can be accomplished by hard coding a type, as you've done with typealias A = String, or using a parameterized type as you mentioned, such as below:
class FooBarClass<T>: FooBar {
typealias A = T
...
}
Swift will not infer your associated type from an implemented method of the protocol, as there could be ambiguity with multiple methods with mismatching types. This is why the typealias must be explicitly resolved in your implementing class.
Following code:
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType = Int // used typealias-assignment
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType) {
print(someVar)
}
}
gives compile-time error:
Use of undeclared type 'SomeType'
Adding, say typealias SomeType = Double, to the SomeClass resolves the error.
The question is, what's the point of typealias-assignment part (which is optional btw) of protocol associated type declaration though?
In this case the assignment of Int to the typealias is equal to no assignment because it gets overridden by your conforming type:
// this declaration is equal since you HAVE TO provide the type for SomeType
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
Such an assignment provides a default type for SomeType which gets overridden by your implementation in SomeClass, but it is especially useful for protocol extensions:
protocol Returnable {
typealias T = Int // T is by default of type Int
func returnValue(value: T) -> T
}
extension Returnable {
func returnValue(value: T) -> T {
return value
}
}
struct AStruct: Returnable {}
AStruct().returnValue(3) // default signature: Int -> Int
You get the function for free only by conforming to the protocol without specifying the type of T. If you want to set your own type write typealias T = String // or any other type in the struct body.
Some additional notes about the provided code example
You solved the problem because you made it explicit which type the parameter has. Swift also infers your used type:
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: Double) {
print(someVar)
}
}
So SomeType of the protocol is inferred to be Double.
Another example where you can see that SomeType in the class declaration doesn't refer to to the protocol:
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
typealias Some = Int
func someFunc(someVar: Some) {
print(someVar)
}
}
// check the type of SomeType of the protocol
// dynamicType returns the current type and SomeType is a property of it
SomeClass().dynamicType.SomeType.self // Int.Type
// SomeType gets inferred form the function signature
However if you do something like that:
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType: SomeProtocol
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
SomeType has to be of type SomeProtocol which can be used for more explicit abstraction and more static code whereas this:
protocol SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeProtocol)
}
would be dynamically dispatched.
There is some great information in the documentation on "associated types" in protocols.
Their use is abundant throughout the standard library, for an example reference the SequenceType protocol, which declares a typealias for Generator (and specifies that it conforms to GeneratorType). This allows the protocol declaration to refer to that aliased type.
In your case, where you used typealias SomeType = Int, perhaps what you meant was "I want SomeType to be constrained to Integer-like behavior because my protocol methods will depend on that constraint" - in which case, you may want to use typealias SomeType: IntegerType in your protocol, and then in your class go on to assign a type to that alias which conforms to IntegerType.
UPDATE
After opening a bug w/ Apple on this and having had extensive discussion around it, I have come to an understanding of what the base issue is at the heart of this:
when conforming to a protocol, you cannot directly refer to an associated type that was declared only within that protocol
(note, however, that when extending a protocol the associated type is available, as you would expect)
So in your initial code example:
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType = Int
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType) { // use of undeclared type "SomeType"
print(someVar)
}
}
...the error re: "use of undeclared type" is correct, your class SomeClass has not declared the type SomeType
However, an extension to SomeProtocol has access to the associated type, and can refer to it when providing an implementation:
(note that this requires using a where clause in order to define the requirement on the associated type)
protocol SomeProtocol {
typealias SomeType = Int
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType)
}
extension SomeProtocol where SomeType == Int {
func someFunc(someVar: SomeType) {
print("1 + \(someVar) = \(1 + someVar)")
}
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {}
SomeClass().someFunc(3) // => "1 + 3 = 4"
There is great article that actually gives you answer for your question. I suggest everyone to read it to get into type-aliases and some more advanced stuff that comes up when you use it.
Citation from website:
Conceptually, there is no generic protocols in Swift. But by using
typealias we can declare a required alias for another type.