I am taking an online class on swift and an example was shown. Why is self used with the init method call but not on colour?
class Car {
var colour = "Black"
var numberOfSeats = 5
var typeOfCar : CarType = .Coupe
init() {
}
convenience init (customerChosenColour : String) {
self.init()
colour = customerChosenColour
}
}
An init() runs when someone makes a new instance of that class like this:
var newInstanceOfCar = Car()
A convenience init allows you to create other initializers for certain use cases, like when there is a customerChosenColour that needs to be specified. It makes things more convenient in those cases.
The reason why self is used, is because when you create convenience init, you still need to call the "main" init, which is a property of self.
You can use self on colour, but it isn't necessary. You would use self.colour, if colour was ambiguous, like in this example:
class Car {
var colour = "Black"
var numberOfSeats = 5
var typeOfCar : CarType = .Coupe
init() {
}
convenience init (colour : String) {
self.init()
self.colour = colour
}
}
Notice how colour is a property of Car, but is also the name of the parameter for the convenience init. It would be confusing to write colour = colour.
So we use self to say that we want the variable in our class, self.colour, to be equal to the value of the parameter, colour.
As you wonder why self. cannot be omitted in self.init(), you can think of self.init() as whole is a special keyword just for convenience initializer. Same as super.init() as whole is a special keyword just for designated initializer. And Car.init()aka Car() is for creating a new instance. Calling init() itself without any receiver is not a valid call ever. So you can treat function call init() as nonexistence, self.init() is one keyword, super.init() is another keyword.
init() is not a member function, it is the initializer, some special code which will be run when creating new instances of that class. Don't treat initializers as regular member functions. They don't have the func keyword in front. They don't have the property of member functions. You can call member function on an instance but you cannot call initializer on an instance (Car().init() is not valid). self.init() dose NOT mean calling a function named init() from self.
class Foo
{
init(){}
func foo(){}
func bar()
{
self.foo() //valid. regular member function call
self.init() //invalid. init() is not a member function of the instance
}
}
Don't think self.init() like calling regular method from the same class, where self. can be omitted, but rather treat the whole thing as a special keyword that means "initialize this object with the designated initializer first".
Related
I would like to do something similar to the following with an NSObject subclass
class Thing: NSObject {
class func defaultText() -> String { ... }
let text: String
init(text: String?) {
self.text = text ?? self.dynamicType.defaultText() // Of course, this line won't compile
super.init()
}
}
so that Thing subclasses may override defaultText() without requiring them to override the initializer. This is easy to do with a mutable stored property, but it would be nice to have it constant. Is there a way to do this?
This is a separate issue than overriding static vars in subclasses swift 1.2 . There is no desire to override a constant or a static method. The only thing in question is, in the initializer where the constant is set, is there a way to compute a value based on the specific class that is being initialized?
Here is my code:
class Base
{
init(){
print("Super!")
}
}
class Test : Base
{
internal var y:Int
convenience init(_ a:Int)
{
self.init()
print("\(a)")
}
override init()
{
super.init() //Error!!! Property 'self.y' not initialized at super.init call
y = 123
}
}
I think this should be compiled:
y is not visible inside class 'Base',whether order of initializations of y's and super class's doesn't really matter.
Your argument
I think this should be compiled:
y is not visible inside class 'Base',whether order of initializations
of y's and super class's doesn't really matter.
is not correct, that would not be safe.
The superclass init can call an instance
method which is overridden in the subclass. That is (at least one)
reason why all subclass properties must be initialized before super.init() is called.
A simple example:
class Base
{
init(){
print("enter Base.init")
setup()
print("leave Base.init")
}
func setup() {
print("Base.setup called")
}
}
class Test : Base
{
internal var y:Int
override init()
{
y = 123
print("before super.init")
super.init()
print("after super.init")
}
override func setup() {
print("Test.setup called")
print("y = \(y)")
}
}
Output:
before super.init
enter Base.init
Test.setup called
y = 123
leave Base.init
after super.init
As you can see, the y property of the subclass is accessed
during the super.init() call, even if it is not known to the
superclass.
It might be interesting to compare the situation in Objective-C
where self = [super initXXX] is always called first. This has the
consequence that property access self.prop in init/dealloc methods
is unsafe and direct access to the instance variable _prop is
recommended because the object may be in a "partially constructed state".
See for example Should I refer to self.property in the init method with ARC?.
So this is one of the issues which have been solved in Swift
(at the cost of stricter requirements).
From the documentation:
Safety check 1
A designated initializer must ensure that all of the
properties introduced by its class are initialized before it delegates
up to a superclass initializer.
As mentioned above, the memory for an object is only considered fully
initialized once the initial state of all of its stored properties is
known. In order for this rule to be satisfied, a designated
initializer must make sure that all its own properties are initialized
before it hands off up the chain.
Source: Swift Language Guide: Initialization
Just exchange the two lines in init
override init()
{
y = 123
super.init()
}
I am trying to understand the use of the required keyword in Swift classes.
class SomeClass
{
required init() {
// initializer implementation goes here
}
}
required doesn't force me to implement the method in my child-class. If I want to override the required designated initializer of my parent class I need to write required and not override. I know how it works but can not understand why I should do this.
What is the benefit of required?
As far as I can tell, languages like C# don't have something like this and work just fine with override.
It's actually just a way of satisfying the compiler to assure it that if this class were to have any subclasses, they would inherit or implement this same initializer. There is doubt on this point, because of the rule that if a subclass has a designated initializer of its own, no initializers from the superclass are inherited. Thus it is possible for a superclass to have an initializer and the subclass not to have it. required overcomes that possibility.
One situation where the compiler needs to be satisfied in this way involves protocols, and works like this:
protocol Flier {
init()
}
class Bird: Flier {
init() {} // compile error
}
The problem is that if Bird had a subclass, that subclass would have to implement or inherit init, and you have not guaranteed that. Marking Bird's init as required does guarantee it.
Alternatively, you could mark Bird as final, thus guaranteeing the converse, namely that it will never have a subclass.
Another situation is where you have a factory method that can make a class or its subclass by calling the same initializer:
class Dog {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
class NoisyDog: Dog {
}
func dogMakerAndNamer(whattype: Dog.Type) -> Dog {
let d = whattype.init(name: "Fido") // compile error
return d
}
dogMakerAndNamer is calling the init(name:) initializer on Dog or a Dog subclass. But how can the compiler be sure that a subclass will have an init(name:) initializer? The required designation calms the compiler's fears.
According to the documentation:
Write the required modifier before the definition of a class initializer to
indicate that every subclass of the class must implement that initializer
So yes, required does force all child classes to implement this constructor. However, this is not needed
if you can satisfy the requirement with an inherited initializer.
So if you have created more complex classes that cannot be fully initialized with a parent constructor, you must implement the require constructor.
Example from documentation (with some added stuff):
class SomeClass {
required init() {
// initializer implementation goes here
}
}
class SomeSubclass: SomeClass {
let thisNeedsToBeInitialized: String
required init() {
// subclass implementation of the required initializer goes here
self.thisNeedsToBeInitialized = "default value"
}
}
I want to draw an attention on another solution provided by Required, apart from Matt has given above.
class superClass{
var name: String
required init(){
// initializer implementation goes here
self.name = "Untitled"
}
}
class subClass: superClass {
var neakName: String = "Subclass Untitled"
}
let instanceSubClass = subClass()
instanceSubClass.name //output: "Untitled"
instanceSubClass.neakName //output: "Subclass Untitled"
As you can check in above example, I've declared required init() on superClass, init() initializer of superClass has inherited by default on subClass, So you able to create an instance of subClass let instanceSubClass = subClass().
But, suppose you want to to add one designated initializer on subClass to assign run time value to stored property neakName. Of course you can add it, but that will result to no initializers from the superClass will be inherited to subClass, So if you will create an instance of subClass you will create through its own designated initializer as below.
class superClass{
var name: String
init(){
// initializer implementation goes here
self.name = "Untitled"
}
}
class subClass: superClass {
var neakName: String = "Subclass Untitled"
init(neakName: String) {
self.neakName = neakName
}
}
let instanceSubClass = subClass(neakName: "Bobby")
instanceSubClass.name //output: "Untitled"
instanceSubClass.neakName //output: "Bobby"
Here above, you won't be able to create an instance of subClass by just subClass(), But if you want that every subclasses of superClass must have their own init() initializer to create direct instance by subClass(). Just place required keyword before init() on superClass, it will force you to add init() initializer on subClass too - as below.
class superClass{
var name: String
required init(){
// initializer implementation goes here
self.name = "Untitled"
}
}
class subClass: superClass {
var neakName: String = "Subclass Untitled"
init(neakName: String) {
self.neakName = neakName
}
} // Compiler error <------------ required `init()` must be provided by subClass.
let instanceSubClass = subClass(neakName: "Bobby")
instanceSubClass.name //output: "Untitled"
instanceSubClass.neakName //output: "Bobby"
SO, use required keyword before initializer on superclass, when you want all subclasses must have been implemented required initializer of superclass.
If you are trying to add you own initialiser in the sub class, then you have to follow certain things those were declared in super class. So it make sure that you will not forget to implement that required method. If you forget compiler will give you error // fatal error, we've not included the required init()
. Another reason is it creates a set of conditions that ever sub class should follow it the sub class is defining its own initialiser.
Is there any difference between init with default value vs calling convenience initialiser ? I try to figure out when should I use convenience instead of init with default.
class Food
{
var name :String
init(name : String = "Unknow")
{
self.name = name
}
}
And this :
class Food
{
var name :String
init(name : String)
{
self.name = name
}
convenience init()
{
self.init(name : "Unkow")
}
}
Convenience initializer is easier for users of the class than a designated initializer with a default value because Xcode lists the two initializers by autocompletion.
Autocompletion for a designated initializer with a default value:
Autocompletion for a designated initializer and convenience initializer:
The screenshots are taken with Xcode 6.2. Unless Xcode supports autocompletion for default values, the convenience initializer is easier for the users, especially if you design a framework for people.
A disadvantage of a convenience initializer is, as Kelvin mentioned in his comment, you cannot use the convenience initializer from the subclass initializer.
Swift Programming Language's example code does not call super.init in the first line. It would seem that's an unsafe practice as an inherited item can be overridden by parent constructor, right?
class EquilateralTriangle: NamedShape {
var sideLength: Double = 0.0
init(sideLength: Double, name: String) {
self.sideLength = sideLength
super.init(name: name)
numberOfSides = 3
}
var perimeter: Double {
get {
return 3.0 * sideLength
}
set {
sideLength = newValue / 3.0
}
}
override func simpleDescription() -> String {
return "An equilateral triagle with sides of length \(sideLength)."
}
}
In initializers you have to fully prepare the object before calling super.init(). That means that all properties declared by the subclass need to have a value by the time you call the super implementation of the initializer.
After calling super.init() you may overwrite properties inherited from the superclass. numberOfSides is an inherited property and because of that it's overwritten after calling the super implementation.
numberOfSides = and self.numberOfSides = are equivalent in this example.
To put things short:
1. Properties declared by the subclass must be set before calling super.init()
2. Inherited properties must be overwritten after calling super.init()
The compiler will throw an error for the first case, but I'm not sure about the latter.