Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
It's known, that when assigning an instance of structure to another instance, or passing it to a function, Swift essentially copies the instances by value. However I could not find anywhere if we actually have control over this process, like in C++ copy constructors. My question is whether Swift has analogue to C++ copy constructors and if not, are there anything in the language what helps to take control over passing-by-value process in Swift?
Copy constructors are implicit in Swift, and can't be user-customized.
They always copy all fields of a struct. For fields that are references to object, copying is defined as the increment of reference count (a retain).
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Statically typed programming languages do type checking at compiling. Is type declaration an important reason that is making them significantly faster?
A statically typed language is one in which the type of every variable is known at compile-time. In some languages like C, C++, Java the programmer must manually specify the type and in other languages like Haskell and Scala has some form of type inference, the capability of the type system to deduce the type of a variable.
Does it make them faster?
1. Figuring out the type at compile-time does reduce a lot of overhead for the run-time.
2. Because the types are figured out earlier on, even functions/ methods in the language are well defined into static addresses. Where as in a dynamically typed language names are based on strings. And for each method access, lookups have to be done. Which are many, causing the language to be slower.
yes static declarations of variables improves execution speed
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Well, it says on their website that Swift is a strict language. However, I am not sure in what ways it is considered to be strict. Can you please elaborate on that?
Statements about the nature of Swift are often expressed in terms meaningful to people accustomed to the previous language, Objective-C. So in this case, the statement that Swift is "strict" typically refers to how things like variables are typed. But unless you have used another language like Objective-C or Ruby that is not strict about typing, you probably won't appreciate the difference.
For example, in Objective-C, programmers often use "dynamic typing", where a variable is typed as id and you can assign to it a value of any type, even different types at different times — now an NSString, now an NSNumber, now a UIView. But in Swift you can't do that; once we've established that this variable is a String, its value can only ever be a String.
Similarly, in Objective-C, NSArray is just "a collection of objects" of any old type. But in Swift, an Array is a collection of just one type of object and you have to say in advance exactly what type it is.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for a list of methods that I can use on Array in Swift.
For example you can run isEmpty on an array, but I couldn't find a list of all methods.
For exmaple I couldn't find global functions like find in the formal documentation
When you cmd-click a built-in function or type Xcode displays a generated file with the entire contents of the module to which that function or type belongs. In this case, if you cmd-click a Swift type (like String) or function (like find), you can see the declarations for the entire Swift built-in library.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
The main aspect of CoffeeScript I'd like to see available also for Dart in form of a different, Dart-based language would be less verbosity, less brackets, less Java-style.
Does such solution exist ?
No.
If you don't want to have your field static you can omit the static keyword.
If you don't want to have your field final you can write var or a concrete type instead of the final keyword.
And if you don't want a loop you can omit for, while, forEach, ...
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I understand these two methods are identical (one is defined in terms of the other) according to this previous question:
Scala Buffer: Size or Length?
But is there a reigning best practice or recommended convention? I can think of three options:
(1) Always use size
(2) Always use length
(3) Use size for all collections exception Array
I'm leaning towards (1) or (3). The rationale behind (3) is that these methods are inherited from Java. And in Java you'd be invoking collection.size() and array.length. The argument for (1) is that it builds on and simplifies (3). The argument for (2) I'm not really sure about.
They are the same. It makes no difference. Use whatever you want.