For example, I have func test(paramA: String){}.
Sometimes I want to pass a string as argument but other times, I definitely don't want to have an argument at all, but rather: test()
Is it possible to call both test() and test("hello") or does it need to be different functions?
Also I'm not sure if this is called something in particular. SO defined optional parameters as:
An optional parameter is one that a caller can include in a call to a function or method, but doesn't have to. When omitted, a default value is used instead. Optional parameters are useful when the default value is used in most cases, but still needs to be specified on occasion.
To me, using Swift, optional means using ? in reference to it perhaps being nil.
EDIT
Thanks for the response. It's evident that I should use default parameters. However, doing so in a closure result in the following error:
"Default argument not permitted in a tuple type"
func characterIsMoving(i: Int, j: Int, completion: #escaping(_ moveWasWithinLimit: Bool, _ test: Bool = false ) -> Void) { ... }
Here comes the full function if that's helpful:
func characterIsMoving(i: Int, j: Int, completion: #escaping(_ moveWasWithinLimit: Bool, _ test: Bool = false ) -> Void) {
if !gameBoardArray[i][j].isAccessibilityElement {
print("Not Accessible")
currentSelectedTile = character.getCurrentPosition()
return
}else {
print("Moving")
var moveWasWithinLimit: Bool
if(characterMoveLimit.contains(currentSelectedTile)){
print("Within Limit")
previousSelectedTile.fillColor = SKColor.gray
currentSelectedTile.fillColor = SKColor.brown
placeCharacter(row: i, col: j)
buttonIsAvailable = false
for moveRadius in characterMoveLimit {
moveRadius.fillColor = SKColor.gray
}
characterMoveLimit.removeAll()
moveLimit(limitWho: "CHARACTER", characterOrEnemy: character, i: i, j: j)
moveWasWithinLimit = true
completion(moveWasWithinLimit)
}else{
print("Outside Move Limit")
currentSelectedTile = previousSelectedTile
moveWasWithinLimit = false
completion(moveWasWithinLimit)
}
}
}
You (everyone, really) would really benefit from reading the Swift book, cover to cover.
What you're looking for is called a default value.
func test(paramA: String = "Your default value here") {}
or
func test(paramA: String? = nil) {}
The former is simpler, but more limited. For example, you can't distinguish rather the default value "Your default value here" was used, or whether the caller passed in their own value, which happens to be "Your default value here"). In my experience, the distinction is seldom required, but it's good to call out just in case.
In the latter case, you have the flexibility to handle the optional in many more ways. You could substitute a default value with ??, do conditional binding, map it, etc.
First you have to be clear with your requirements.
You should not use methods which are directly dependent on instance variables, as setting there values will be a problem according to your unit test cases.
As per my understanding this is the correct approach you can define the method with parameter having default value.
So that you can call that method as per your requirements with or without the parameter.
Related
When I set firstThing to default nil this will work, without the default value of nil I get a error that there is a missing parameter when calling the function.
By typing Int? I thought it made it optional with a default value of nil, am I right? And if so, why doesn't it work without the = nil?
func test(firstThing: Int? = nil) {
if firstThing != nil {
print(firstThing!)
}
print("done")
}
test()
Optionals and default parameters are two different things.
An Optional is a variable that can be nil, that's it.
Default parameters use a default value when you omit that parameter, this default value is specified like this: func test(param: Int = 0)
If you specify a parameter that is an optional, you have to provide it, even if the value you want to pass is nil. If your function looks like this func test(param: Int?), you can't call it like this test(). Even though the parameter is optional, it doesn't have a default value.
You can also combine the two and have a parameter that takes an optional where nil is the default value, like this: func test(param: Int? = nil).
The default argument allows you to call the function without passing an argument. If you don't pass the argument, then the default argument is supplied. So using your code, this...
test()
...is exactly the same as this:
test(nil)
If you leave out the default argument like this...
func test(firstThing: Int?) {
if firstThing != nil {
print(firstThing!)
}
print("done")
}
...then you can no longer do this...
test()
If you do, you will get the "missing argument" error that you described. You must pass an argument every time, even if that argument is just nil:
test(nil) // this works
Swift is not like languages like JavaScript, where you can call a function without passing the parameters and it will still be called. So to call a function in Swift, you need to assign a value to its parameters.
Default values for parameters allow you to assign a value without specifying it when calling the function. That's why test() works when you specify a default value on test's declaration.
If you don't include that default value, you need to provide the value on the call: test(nil).
Also, and not directly related to this question, but probably worth to note, you are using the "C++" way of dealing with possibly null pointers, for dealing with possible nil optionals in Swift. The following code is safer (specially in multithreading software), and it allows you to avoid the forced unwrapping of the optional:
func test(firstThing: Int? = nil) {
if let firstThing = firstThing {
print(firstThing)
}
print("done")
}
test()
You are conflating Optional with having a default. An Optional accepts either a value or nil. Having a default permits the argument to be omitted in calling the function. An argument can have a default value with or without being of Optional type.
func someFunc(param1: String?,
param2: String = "default value",
param3: String? = "also has default value") {
print("param1 = \(param1)")
print("param2 = \(param2)")
print("param3 = \(param3)")
}
Example calls with output:
someFunc(param1: nil, param2: "specific value", param3: "also specific value")
param1 = nil
param2 = specific value
param3 = Optional("also specific value")
someFunc(param1: "has a value")
param1 = Optional("has a value")
param2 = default value
param3 = Optional("also has default value")
someFunc(param1: nil, param3: nil)
param1 = nil
param2 = default value
param3 = nil
To summarize:
Type with ? (e.g. String?) is an Optional may be nil or may contain an instance of
Type
Argument with default value may be omitted from a call to
function and the default value will be used
If both Optional and has default, then it may be omitted from function call OR may be included and can be provided with a nil value (e.g. param1: nil)
in case you need to use a bool param, you need just to assign the default value.
func test(WithFlag flag: Bool = false){.....}
then you can use without or with the param:
test() //here flag automatically has the default value: false
test(WithFlag: true) //here flag has the value: true
"Optional parameter" means "type of this parameter is optional". It does not mean "This parameter is optional and, therefore, can be ignored when you call the function".
The term "optional parameter" appears to be confusing. To clarify, it's more accurate to say "optional type parameter" instead of "optional parameter" as the word "optional" here is only meant to describe the type of parameter value and nothing else.
If you want to be able to call the func with or without the parameter you can create a second func of the same name which calls the other.
func test(firstThing: Int?) {
if firstThing != nil {
print(firstThing!)
}
print("done")
}
func test() {
test(firstThing: nil)
}
now you can call a function named test without or without the parameter.
// both work
test()
test(firstThing: 5)
Don't let the question mark fools you!
Optional is an enum which has two cases:
#frozen public enum Optional<Wrapped> : ExpressibleByNilLiteral {
/// The absence of a value.
///
/// In code, the absence of a value is typically written using the `nil`
/// literal rather than the explicit `.none` enumeration case.
case none
/// The presence of a value, stored as `Wrapped`.
case some(Wrapped)
}
code from the original compiled source of the Optional inside Xcode
When you are defining a function that accept some Type of arguments, you can pass a default value withe the same type.
in your case
the type of the firstThing is Optional<Int> (also known as Int?). So if you want the caller to the oportunity to ignore the paramter, you MUST do the job for the caller and pass a default value.
Usually we need the .none case of the optional so we can do:
func test(firstThing: Optional<Int> = .none) { ... }
This is exactly the same as:
func test(firstThing: Int? = nil) { ... }
Also!
Who seys that we the default value of an optional is a nil? maybe passing nil means that the function should remove something by updating it's value to 'nil'. So don't asume "the default value for optional is a nil"
It is little tricky when you try to combine optional parameter and default value for that parameter. Like this,
func test(param: Int? = nil)
These two are completely opposite ideas. When you have an optional type parameter but you also provide default value to it, it is no more an optional type now since it has a default value. Even if the default is nil, swift simply removes the optional binding without checking what the default value is.
So it is always better not to use nil as default value.
Default value doesn't mean default value of data type .Here default value mean value defined at the time of defining function.
we have to declare default value of variable while defining variable in function.
When passing a class or primitive type into a function, any change made in the function to the parameter will be reflected outside of the class. This is basically the same thing an inout parameter is supposed to do.
What is a good use case for an inout parameter?
inout means that modifying the local variable will also modify the passed-in parameters. Without it, the passed-in parameters will remain the same value. Trying to think of reference type when you are using inout and value type without using it.
For example:
import UIKit
var num1: Int = 1
var char1: Character = "a"
func changeNumber(var num: Int) {
num = 2
print(num) // 2
print(num1) // 1
}
changeNumber(num1)
func changeChar(inout char: Character) {
char = "b"
print(char) // b
print(char1) // b
}
changeChar(&char1)
A good use case will be swap function that it will modify the passed-in parameters.
Swift 3+ Note: Starting in Swift 3, the inout keyword must come after the colon and before the type. For example, Swift 3+ now requires func changeChar(char: inout Character).
From Apple Language Reference: Declarations - In-Out Parameters:
As an optimization, when the argument is a value stored at a physical
address in memory, the same memory location is used both inside and
outside the function body. The optimized behavior is known as call by
reference; it satisfies all of the requirements of the copy-in
copy-out model while removing the overhead of copying. Do not depend
on the behavioral differences between copy-in copy-out and call by
reference.
If you have a function that takes a somewhat memory-wise large value type as argument (say, a large structure type) and that returns the same type, and finally where the function return is always used just to replace the caller argument, then inout is to prefer as associated function parameter.
Consider the example below, where comments describe why we would want to use inout over a regular type-in-return-type function here:
struct MyStruct {
private var myInt: Int = 1
// ... lots and lots of stored properties
mutating func increaseMyInt() {
myInt += 1
}
}
/* call to function _copies_ argument to function property 'myHugeStruct' (copy 1)
function property is mutated
function returns a copy of mutated property to caller (copy 2) */
func myFunc(var myHugeStruct: MyStruct) -> MyStruct {
myHugeStruct.increaseMyInt()
return myHugeStruct
}
/* call-by-reference, no value copy overhead due to inout opimization */
func myFuncWithLessCopyOverhead(inout myHugeStruct: MyStruct) {
myHugeStruct.increaseMyInt()
}
var a = MyStruct()
a = myFunc(a) // copy, copy: overhead
myFuncWithLessCopyOverhead(&a) // call by reference: no memory reallocation
Also, in the example above---disregarding memory issues---inout can be preferred simply as a good code practice of telling whomever read our code that we are mutating the function caller argument (implicitly shown by the ampersand & preceding the argument in the function call). The following summarises this quite neatly:
If you want a function to modify a parameter’s value, and you want
those changes to persist after the function call has ended, define
that parameter as an in-out parameter instead.
From Apple Language Guide: Functions - In-Out Parameters.
For details regarding inout and how it's actually handled in memory (name copy-in-copy-out is somewhat misleading...)---in additional to the links to the language guide above---see the following SO thread:
Using inout keyword: is the parameter passed-by-reference or by copy-in copy-out (/call by value result)
(Edit addition: An additional note)
The example given in the accepted answer by Lucas Huang above tries to---in the scope of the function using an inout argument---access the variables that were passed as the inout arguments. This is not recommended, and is explicitly warned not to do in the language ref:
Do not access the value that was passed as an in-out argument, even if
the original argument is available in the current scope. When the
function returns, your changes to the original are overwritten with
the value of the copy. Do not depend on the implementation of the
call-by-reference optimization to try to keep the changes from being
overwritten.
Now, the access in this case is "only" non-mutable, e.g. print(...), but all access like this should, by convention, be avoided.
At request from a commenter, I'll add an example to shine light upon why we shouldn't really do anything with "the value that was passed as an in-out argument".
struct MyStruct {
var myStructsIntProperty: Int = 1
mutating func myNotVeryThoughtThroughInoutFunction (inout myInt: Int) {
myStructsIntProperty += 1
/* What happens here? 'myInt' inout parameter is passed to this
function by argument 'myStructsIntProperty' from _this_ instance
of the MyStruct structure. Hence, we're trying to increase the
value of the inout argument. Since the swift docs describe inout
as a "call by reference" type as well as a "copy-in-copy-out"
method, this behaviour is somewhat undefined (at least avoidable).
After the function has been called: will the value of
myStructsIntProperty have been increased by 1 or 2? (answer: 1) */
myInt += 1
}
func myInoutFunction (inout myInt: Int) {
myInt += 1
}
}
var a = MyStruct()
print(a.myStructsIntProperty) // 1
a.myInoutFunction(&a.myStructsIntProperty)
print(a.myStructsIntProperty) // 2
a.myNotVeryThoughtThroughInoutFunction(&a.myStructsIntProperty)
print(a.myStructsIntProperty) // 3 or 4? prints 3.
So, in this case, the inout behaves as copy-in-copy-out (and not by reference). We summarize by repeating the following statement from the language ref docs:
Do not depend on the behavioral differences between copy-in copy-out
and call by reference.
Function parameters are constants by default. Trying to change the value of a function parameter from within the body of that function results in a compile-time error. This means that you can’t change the value of a parameter by mistake. If you want a function to modify a parameter’s value, and you want those changes to persist after the function call has ended, define that parameter as an in-out parameter instead.
inout param: modifies passing and local variable values.
func doubleInPlace(number: inout Int) {
number *= 2
print(number)
}
var myNum = 10 doubleInPlace(number: &myNum)
inout parameter allow us to change the data of a value type parameter and to keep changes still after the function call has finished.
If you work with classes then, as you say, you can modify the class because the parameter is a reference to the class. But this won't work when your parameter is a value type (https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Functions.html - In-Out Parameters Section)
One good example of using inout is this one (defining math for CGPoints):
func + (left: CGPoint, right: CGPoint) -> CGPoint {
return CGPoint(x: left.x + right.x, y: left.y + right.y)
}
func += (left: inout CGPoint, right: CGPoint) {
left = left + right
}
Basically it is useful when you want to play with addresses of variable its very useful in data structure algorithms
when use inout parameter swift 4.0 Work
class ViewController: UIViewController {
var total:Int = 100
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
self.paramTotal(total1: &total)
}
func paramTotal(total1 :inout Int) {
total1 = 111
print("Total1 ==> \(total1)")
print("Total ==> \(total)")
}
}
Swift 3.
Ultimately my functions need to receive UInt8 data types, but I'm never sure if the arguments I will receive from callers will be Int, Int64, UInt, Float, etc. I know they will be numeric types, I just don't know which flavor.
I could do:
func foo(value: Int) { }
func foo(value: Float) {}
func foo(value: UInt) {}
But that's crazy. So I thought I could do something like create a protocol
protocol ValidEncodable {
}
And then pass in types that conform:
func foo(value: ValidEncodable) { }
And then in that function I could get my values into the correct format
func foo(value: ValidEncoable) -> UInt8 {
let correctedValue = min(max(floor(value), 0), 100)
return UInt8(correctedValue)
}
I'm really struggling to figure out
1) How to create this ValidEncodable protocol that contains all the numeric types
2) And how to do things like floor(value) when the value I get is an Int without iterating over every possible numeric type (i.e. (floor(x) is only available on floating-point types)
Ultimately I need the values to be UInt8 in the range of 0-100. The whole reason for this madness is that I'm parsing XML files to my own internal data structures and I want to bake in some validation to my values.
This can be done without a protocol, and by making use of compiler checks, which greatly reduces the changes of bugs.
My recommendation is to use a partial function - i.e. a function that instead of taking an int, it takes an already validated value. Check this article for a more in-depth description of why partial functions are great.
You can build a Int0to100 struct, which has either a failable or throwable initializer (depending on taste):
struct Int0to100 {
let value: UInt8
init?(_ anInt: Int) {
guard anInt >= 0 && anInt <= 100 else { return nil }
value = UInt8(anInt)
}
init?(_ aFloat: Float) {
let flooredValue = floor(aFloat)
guard flooredValue >= 0 && flooredValue <= 100 else { return nil }
value = UInt8(flooredValue)
}
// ... another initializers can be added the same way
}
and change foo to allow to be called with this argument instead:
func foo(value: Int0to100) {
// do your stuff here, you know for sure, at compile time,
// that the function can be called with a valid value only
}
You move to the caller the responsibility of validating the integer value, however the validation resolves to checking an optional, which is easy, and allows you to handle the scenario of an invalid number with minimal effort.
Another important aspect is that you explicitly declare the domain of the foo function, which improves the overall design of the code.
And not last, enforcements set at compile time greatly reduce the potential of having runtime issues.
If you know your incoming values will lie in 0..<256, then you can just construct a UInt8 and pass it to the function.
func foo(value: UInt8) -> UInt8 { return value }
let number = arbitraryNumber()
print(foo(UInt8(number)))
This will throw a runtime exception if the value is too large to fit in a byte, but otherwise will work. You could protect against this type of error by doing some bounds checking between the second and third lines.
I will first explain what I'm trying to do and how I got to where I got stuck before getting to the question.
As a learning exercise for myself, I took some problems that I had already solved in Objective-C to see how I can solve them differently with Swift. The specific case that I got stuck on is a small piece that captures a value before and after it changes and interpolates between the two to create keyframes for an animation.
For this I had an object Capture with properties for the object, the key path and two id properties for the values before and after. Later, when interpolating the captured values I made sure that they could be interpolated by wrapping each of them in a Value class that used a class cluster to return an appropriate class depending on the type of value it wrapped, or nil for types that wasn't supported.
This works, and I am able to make it work in Swift as well following the same pattern, but it doesn't feel Swift like.
What worked
Instead of wrapping the captured values as a way of enabling interpolation, I created a Mixable protocol that the types could conform to and used a protocol extension for when the type supported the necessary basic arithmetic:
protocol SimpleArithmeticType {
func +(lhs: Self, right: Self) -> Self
func *(lhs: Self, amount: Double) -> Self
}
protocol Mixable {
func mix(with other: Self, by amount: Double) -> Self
}
extension Mixable where Self: SimpleArithmeticType {
func mix(with other: Self, by amount: Double) -> Self {
return self * (1.0 - amount) + other * amount
}
}
This part worked really well and enforced homogeneous mixing (that a type could only be mixed with its own type), which wasn't enforced in the Objective-C implementation.
Where I got stuck
The next logical step, and this is where I got stuck, seemed to be to make each Capture instance (now a struct) hold two variables of the same mixable type instead of two AnyObject. I also changed the initializer argument from being an object and a key path to being a closure that returns an object ()->T
struct Capture<T: Mixable> {
typealias Evaluation = () -> T
let eval: Evaluation
let before: T
var after: T {
return eval()
}
init(eval: Evaluation) {
self.eval = eval
self.before = eval()
}
}
This works when the type can be inferred, for example:
let captureInt = Capture {
return 3.0
}
// > Capture<Double>
but not with key value coding, which return AnyObject:\
let captureAnyObject = Capture {
return myObject.valueForKeyPath("opacity")!
}
error: cannot invoke initializer for type 'Capture' with an argument list of type '(() -> _)'
AnyObject does not conform to the Mixable protocol, so I can understand why this doesn't work. But I can check what type the object really is, and since I'm only covering a handful of mixable types, I though I could cover all the cases and return the correct type of Capture. Too see if this could even work I made an even simpler example
A simpler example
struct Foo<T> {
let x: T
init(eval: ()->T) {
x = eval()
}
}
which works when type inference is guaranteed:
let fooInt = Foo {
return 3
}
// > Foo<Int>
let fooDouble = Foo {
return 3.0
}
// > Foo<Double>
But not when the closure can return different types
let condition = true
let foo = Foo {
if condition {
return 3
} else {
return 3.0
}
}
error: cannot invoke initializer for type 'Foo' with an argument list of type '(() -> _)'
I'm not even able to define such a closure on its own.
let condition = true // as simple as it could be
let evaluation = {
if condition {
return 3
} else {
return 3.0
}
}
error: unable to infer closure type in the current context
My Question
Is this something that can be done at all? Can a condition be used to determine the type of a generic? Or is there another way to hold two variables of the same type, where the type was decided based on a condition?
Edit
What I really want is to:
capture the values before and after a change and save the pair (old + new) for later (a heterogeneous collection of homogeneous pairs).
go through all the collected values and get rid of the ones that can't be interpolated (unless this step could be integrated with the collection step)
interpolate each homogeneous pair individually (mixing old + new).
But it seems like this direction is a dead end when it comes to solving that problem. I'll have to take a couple of steps back and try a different approach (and probably ask a different question if I get stuck again).
As discussed on Twitter, the type must be known at compile time. Nevertheless, for the simple example at the end of the question you could just explicitly type
let evaluation: Foo<Double> = { ... }
and it would work.
So in the case of Capture and valueForKeyPath: IMHO you should cast (either safely or with a forced cast) the value to the Mixable type you expect the value to be and it should work fine. Afterall, I'm not sure valueForKeyPath: is supposed to return different types depending on a condition.
What is the exact case where you would like to return 2 totally different types (that can't be implicitly casted as in the simple case of Int and Double above) in the same evaluation closure?
in my full example I also have cases for CGPoint, CGSize, CGRect, CATransform3D
The limitations are just as you have stated, because of Swift's strict typing. All types must be definitely known at compile time, and each thing can be of only one type - even a generic (it is resolved by the way it is called at compile time). Thus, the only thing you can do is turn your type into into an umbrella type that is much more like Objective-C itself:
let condition = true
let evaluation = {
() -> NSObject in // *
if condition {
return 3
} else {
return NSValue(CGPoint:CGPointMake(0,1))
}
}
I know about the ampersand as a bit operation but sometimes I see it in front of variable names. What does putting an & in front of variables do?
It works as an inout to make the variable an in-out parameter. In-out means in fact passing value by reference, not by value. And it requires not only to accept value by reference, by also to pass it by reference, so pass it with & - foo(&myVar) instead of just foo(myVar)
As you see you can use that in error handing in Swift where you have to create an error reference and pass it to the function using & the function will populate the error value if an error occur or pass the variable back as it was before
Why do we use it? Sometimes a function already returns other values and just returning another one (like an error) would be confusing, so we pass it as an inout. Other times we want the values to be populated by the function so we don't have to iterate over lots of return values, since the function already did it for us - among other possible uses.
It means that it is an in-out variable. You can do something directly with that variable. It is passed by address, not as a copy.
For example:
var temp = 10
func add(inout a: Int){
a++
}
add(inout:&temp)
temp // 11
There's another function of the ampersand in the Swift language that hasn't been mentioned yet. Take the following example:
protocol Foo {}
protocol Bar {}
func myMethod(myVar: Foo & Bar) {
// Do something
}
Here the ampersand syntax is stating that myVar conforms to both the Foo and Bar protocol.
As another use case, consider the following:
func myMethod() -> UIViewController & UITableViewDataSource {
// Do something
}
Here we're saying that the method returns a class instance (of UIViewController) that conforms to a certain protocol (UITableViewDataSource). This is rendered somewhat obsolete with Swift 5.1's Opaque Types but you may see this syntax in pre-Swift 5.1 code from time to time.
If you put & before a variable in a function, that means this variable is inout variable.
#Icaro already described what it means, I will just give an example to illustrate the difference between inout variables and in variables:
func majec(inout xValue:Int, var yValue:Int) {
xValue = 100
yValue = 200
}
var xValue = 33
var yValue = 33
majec(&xValue, yValue: yValue)
xValue //100
yValue //33
As noted in other answers, you use prefix & to pass a value to an inout parameter of a method or function call, as documented under Functions > Function Argument Labels and Parameter Names > In-Out Parameters in The Swift Programming Language. But there's more to it than that.
You can, in practice, think about Swift inout parameters and passing values to them as being similar to C or C++ pass-by-address or pass-by-reference. In fact, the compiler will optimize many uses of inout parameters down to roughly the same mechanics (especially when you're calling imported C or ObjC APIs that deal in pointers). However, those are just optimizations — at a semantic level, inout really doesn't pass addresses around, which frees the compiler to make this language construct more flexible and powerful.
For example, here's a struct that uses a common strategy for validating access to one of its properties:
struct Point {
private var _x: Int
var x: Int {
get {
print("get x: \(_x)")
return _x
}
set {
print("set x: \(newValue)")
_x = newValue
}
}
// ... same for y ...
init(x: Int, y: Int) { self._x = x; self._y = y }
}
(In "real" code, the getter and setter for x could do things like enforcing minimum/maximum values. Or x could do other computed-property tricks, like talking to a SQL database under the hood. Here we just instrument the call and get/set the underlying private property.)
Now, what happens when we pass x to an inout parameter?
func plusOne(num: inout Int) {
num += 1
}
var pt = Point(x: 0, y: 1)
plusOne(num: &pt.x)
// prints:
// get x: 0
// set x: 1
So, even though x is a computed property, passing it "by reference" using an inout parameter works the same as you'd expect it to if x were a stored property or a local variable.
This means that you can pass all sorts of things "by reference" that you couldn't even consider in C/C++/ObjC. For example, consider the standard library swap function, that takes any two... "things" and switches their values:
var a = 1, b = 2
swap(&a, &b)
print(a, b) // -> 2 1
var dict = [ "Malcolm": "Captain", "Kaylee": "Mechanic" ]
swap(&dict["Malcolm"], &dict["Kaylee"])
print(dict) // -> ["Kaylee": "Captain", "Malcolm": "Mechanic"], fanfic ahoy
let window1 = NSWindow()
let window2 = NSWindow()
window1.title = "window 1"
window2.title = "window 2"
var windows = [window1, window2]
swap(&windows[0], &windows[1])
print(windows.map { $0.title }) // -> ["window 2", "window 1"]
The the way inout works also lets you do fun stuff like using the += operator on nested call chains:
window.frame.origin.x += 10
... which is a whole lot simpler than decomposing a CGRect just to construct a new one with a different x coordinate.
This more nuanced version of the inout behavior, called "call by value result", and the ways it can optimize down to C-style "pass by address" behavior, is covered under Declarations > Functions > In-Out Parameters in The Swift Programming Language.