I declare a protocol:
protocol FullNameable {
var fullName: String {get set}
}
then adopt the above protocol for class and struct like below:
struct LectureStruct: FullNameable {
var fullName: String
}
class LectureClass: FullNameable {
var fullName: String
}
But for class I am getting error - Stored property 'fullName' without initial value prevents synthesized initializers. Why this error is not for a struct?
According to swift documentation:
All structures have an automatically generated memberwise initializer,
which you can use to initialize the member properties of new structure
instances. Initial values for the properties of the new instance can
be passed to the memberwise initializer by name
let vga = Resolution(width: 640, height: 480)
Unlike structures, class instances don’t receive a default memberwise
initializer.
In your case, you can instantiate LectureStruct with:
let lecture = LectureStruct(fullName: "Match Lecture")
In order to do the same with LectureClass you'll need to define an init method like so:
class LectureClass: FullNameable {
var fullName: String
init(fullName: String) {
self.fullName = fullName
}
}
Related
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).
I have a struct with two variables inside property wrappers. One of the variables is supposed to be computed from the other. When I try to do this, I get the following error:
Cannot use instance member 'name' within property initializer; property initializers run before 'self' is available.
I tried assigning a temporary value to these variables, and then re-assigning them within a custom init() function, but that doesn't seem to work ether. I made a simplified version of the code to see if I could isolate the issue.
import SwiftUI
struct Person {
#State var name: String = ""
#State var nameTag: NameTag = NameTag(words: "")
init(name: String) {
// not changing name and nameTag
self.name = name
nameTag = NameTag(words: "Hi, my name is \(name).")
}
}
class NameTag {
var words: String
init(words: String) {
self.words = words
}
}
var me = Person(name: "Myself")
// still set to initial values
me.name
me.nameTag.words
I noticed that when I changed nameTag to an #ObservedObject, rather than #State, it was able to be re-assigned correctly. Although I don't believe I can change name to #ObservedObject. Could anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
To use property wrappers in initializers, you use the variable names with preceding underscores.
And with State, you use init(initialValue:).
struct Person {
#State var name: String
#State var nameTag: NameTag
init(name: String) {
_name = .init(initialValue: name)
_nameTag = .init( initialValue: .init(words: name) )
}
}
Here's what a #State property really looks like, as your tear down levels of syntactic sugar:
name
_name.wrappedValue
$name.wrappedValue
_name.projectedValue.wrappedValue
You can't use the underscore-name outside of the initial type definition.
I'm pretty new to Swift, and although I've read Apple's documentation and many topics and threads about this, I still can't understand what's the difference between { get } and { get set }. I mean, I'm looking for an explanation with a concrete example.
Like, for example:
protocol PersonProtocol {
var firstName: String { get }
var lastName: String { get set }
}
What would be the actual difference between these two properties? I tried to play with these properties in a playground:
struct Person: PersonProtocol {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}
var p = Person(firstName: "John", lastName: "Lennon")
print(p.firstName) // John
print(p.lastName) // Lennon
p.firstName = "Paul"
p.lastName = "McCartney"
print(p.firstName) // Paul
print(p.lastName) // McCartney
Did not help... Thanks for your help.
You are creating a variable of type Person and there are no restrictions on that struct. If you instead create a variable of type PersonProtocol then firstName will be read only
var p1: PersonProtocol = Person(firstName: "John", lastName: "Lennon")
print(p1.firstName) // John
print(p1.lastName) // Lennon
p1.firstName = "Paul" <== error: cannot assign to property: 'firstName' is a get-only property
protocol — is a requirement of some minimal interface of the type implementing it.
var name: Type { get } requires type to have property with at least a getter (accessible from outside of the type, not private), i.e. outside code should be able to read value of the property. In the implementing type it could be let name: Type, var name: Type, private(set) var name: Type, fileprivate(set) var name: Type, etc.
var name: Type { get set } requires type to have property with both accessible getter and setter, i.e. outside code should be able to read and write to the property. Here only var name: Type would be allowed.
If protocol requires for getter but you also provide a setter — it's not against protocol requirements.
But if protocol requires for both getter and setter — you must provide both, and not having any of them won't be valid implementation.
Your Person class defined both properties as var(with accessible getter and setter) therefore you can change them both. But PersonProtocol haven't required ability to set firstName.
And as #JoakimDanielson shows, if you will use just interface required by protocol you won't be to change the firstName value.
I have a protocol that describes a marine water parameter that needs tested:
protocol Parameter {
var name: String { get }
var unit: Unit { get }
var value: Double { get }
}
I have a struct, Calcium, that conforms to Parameter:
struct Calcium: Parameter {
var name: String = "Calcium"
var unit: Unit = UnitDispersion.partsPerMillion
var value: Double
}
Since the name and unit parameters of Calcium have default values, why do I need to provide them in the init method? Shouldn't I only need to provide a value for value?
I am trying to understand protocol-oriented-programming and would really appreciate a little guidance here.
This has nothing whatever to do with protocols.
You do not have to provide an initializer for anything but the value. But you have not provided any initializer. Therefore the only initializer you have is the one provided automatically, and that initializer is the memberwise initializer which wants parameters for all your properties.
If you don't like that, write an initializer yourself:
struct Calcium: Parameter {
var name: String = "Calcium"
var unit: Unit = UnitDispersion.partsPerMillion
var value: Double
init(value:Double) {self.value = value}
}
Now it is legal to say:
let c = Calcium(value:2)
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 { }