Equatable protocol in swift - swift

I am trying to make a simple game implementation. So each game has a correct Answer. The Answer could be an Int or String. So what I have in code is:
protocol Answer {}
extension Int: Answer {}
extension String: Answer {}
protocol CorrectAnswer {
var correctAnswer: Answer { get }
}
I have a protocol for what a game needs:
protocol GameDescriber {
var name: String { get }
var description: String { get }
var points: Int { get }
}
And the implementation of the Game struct:
struct Game: GameDescriber, Equatable, CorrectAnswer {
var correctAnswer: Answer
var name: String
var description: String
var points: Int
static func ==(_ lhs: Game, _ rhs:Game) -> Bool {
if let _ = lhs.correctAnswer as? String, let _ = rhs.correctAnswer as? Int {
return false
}
if let _ = lhs.correctAnswer as? Int, let _ = rhs.correctAnswer as? String {
return false
}
if let lhsInt = lhs.correctAnswer as? Int, let rhsInt = rhs.correctAnswer as? Int {
if lhsInt != rhsInt {
return false
}
}
if let lhsString = lhs.correctAnswer as? String, let rhsString = rhs.correctAnswer as? String {
if lhsString != rhsString {
return false
}
}
return lhs.description == rhs.description &&
lhs.name == rhs.name &&
lhs.points == rhs.points
}
}
If I want to add another Answer type (let's say an array of Ints) I have to do that:
extension Array: Answer where Element == Int {}
But what bothers me is in the implementation of the Equatable func == I have to cover this and possibly other cases as well. Which can me dramatic :)
Is there a solution for this and can it be done in more elegant and generic way?

First note that your implementation of == can be simplified to
static func ==(_ lhs: Game, _ rhs:Game) -> Bool {
switch (lhs.correctAnswer, rhs.correctAnswer) {
case (let lhsInt as Int, let rhsInt as Int):
if lhsInt != rhsInt {
return false
}
case (let lhsString as String, let rhsString as String):
if lhsString != rhsString {
return false
}
default:
return false
}
return lhs.description == rhs.description &&
lhs.name == rhs.name &&
lhs.points == rhs.points
}
so that adding another answer type just means adding one additional
case.
The problem is that the compiler cannot verify that all possible
answer types are handled in your == function, so this approach
is error-prone.
What I actually would do is to use an enum Answer instead of a
protocol, and make that Equatable:
enum Answer: Equatable {
case int(Int)
case string(String)
}
Note that you don't have to implement ==. As of Swift 4.1, the
compiler synthesizes that automatically, see
SE-0185 Synthesizing Equatable and Hashable conformance.
And now Game simplifies to
struct Game: GameDescriber, Equatable, CorrectAnswer {
var correctAnswer: Answer
var name: String
var description: String
var points: Int
}
where the compiler synthesizes == as well, with a default implementation that compares all stored properties for equality.
Adding another answer type is simply done by adding another case to
the enumeration:
enum Answer: Equatable {
case int(Int)
case string(String)
case intArray([Int])
}
without any additional code.

Related

Swift: assign to variable in switch case-let-where

Is it possible to make an assignment to the artist variable before it is used in the where subclause?
var artist
switch fullline {
case let path where path.hasPrefix("Monet"):
artist = "Monet"
case let path where path.hasPrefix("Cezanne"):
artist = "Cezanne"
default: ()
}
Closure:
case let path where { () -> Bool in let artist = "Monet"; return path.hasPrefix(artist) }:
Error:
() -> Bool' is not convertible to 'Bool'
Context:
I have lines of freeform text with artist name as the prefix that requires
massaging to output consistent humanly readable text. e.g.
Monet : Snow at Argenteuil 02, 1874
Monet - Snow at Argenteuil, 1874, 3rd Floor Collections
Monet, Claude - 1875, Snow in Argenteuil
Cezzane - Vase of Flowers, 1880-81, print
Cezzane, Paul 1900-1903 Vase of Flowers
Cezzane - Vase with Flowers, 1895-1896
There will be a code fragments that performs detailed processing/categorizing
for each artist. Hence the processing logic is artist dependent.
I would like to define similar to the following construct
switch fullline
hasPrefix(artist = "Monet")
-> code logic 1
get_birthday(artist)
hasPrefix(artist = "Cezzane")
-> code logic 2
get_birthday(artist)
With a little modification to the Alexander's struct, you can write something like this:
struct PrefixMatcherWithHandler {
var handler: (String)->Void
var string: String
init(_ string: String, handler: #escaping (String)->Void) {
self.string = string
self.handler = handler
}
static func ~= (prefix: String, matcher: PrefixMatcherWithHandler) -> Bool {
if matcher.string.hasPrefix(prefix) {
matcher.handler(prefix)
return true
} else {
return false
}
}
}
var fullline: String = "Monet, Claude"
var artist: String? = nil
let matcher = PrefixMatcherWithHandler(fullline) {str in
artist = str
}
switch matcher {
case "Monet":
break
case "Cezanne":
break
default: break
}
print(artist ?? "") //->Monet
But having some side-effect in boolean operators like ~= makes your code less readable and can easily make unexpected result.
If you just want to reduce some redundant reference to a same thing, switch-statement may not be a good tool for it.
For example, you can get the same result without defining specific matcher types:
var fullline: String = "Monet, Claude"
var artist: String? = nil
if let match = ["Monet", "Cezanne"].first(where: {fullline.hasPrefix($0)}) {
artist = match
}
print(artist ?? "") //->Monet
ADDED for updated parts of the question
The following code behaves slightly different than prefix-matching, but I believe you do not want to match "Mon" to the line Monet, Claude - 1875, Snow in Argenteuil.
extension String {
var firstWord: String? {
var result: String? = nil
enumerateSubstrings(in: startIndex..<endIndex, options: .byWords) {str, _, _, stop in
result = str
stop = true
}
return result
}
}
func get_birthday(_ artist: String) {
//What do you want to do?
print(artist)
}
var fullline: String = "Monet, Claude - 1875, Snow in Argenteuil"
switch fullline.firstWord {
case let artist? where artist == "Monet":
//code dedicated for "Monet"
get_birthday(artist)
case let artist? where artist == "Cezanne":
//code dedicated for "Cezanne"
get_birthday(artist)
default:
break
}
When you can retrieve data suitable for switch-statement, the code would be far more intuitive and readable.
You're giving that closure where a boolean is expected. Not sure why you would want to do this, but you could make it work by using () to invoke the closure.
var artist
switch fullline {
case let path where { () -> Bool in let artist = "Monet"; return path.hasPrefix(artist) }():
artist = "Monet"
case let path where path.hasPrefix("Cezanne"):
artist = "Cezanne"
default: ()
}
Here is how I would do this:
import Foundation
struct PrefixMatcher {
let string: String
init(_ string: String) { self.string = string }
static func ~= (prefix: String, matcher: PrefixMatcher) -> Bool {
return matcher.string.hasPrefix(prefix)
}
}
extension String {
var prefix: PrefixMatcher { return PrefixMatcher(self) }
}
let fullline = "Monet 123456789"
let artist: String?
switch fullline.prefix {
case "Monet": artist = "Monet"
case "Cezanne": artist = "Cezanne"
default: artist = nil
}
print(artist as Any)
More general solution:
import Foundation
struct PredicateMatcher<Pattern> {
typealias Predicate = (Pattern) -> Bool
let predicate: Predicate
static func ~=(pattern: Pattern,
matcher: PredicateMatcher<Pattern>) -> Bool {
return matcher.predicate(pattern)
}
}
extension String {
var prefix: PredicateMatcher<String> {
return PredicateMatcher(predicate: self.hasPrefix)
}
}
You can achieve this by switching over a tuple of your enum and your optional.
Optional is an enum too, so you can switch both of them
enum SomeSnum {
case a, b, c
}
let someString: String? = "something"
let esomeEnum = SomeSnum.b
switch(esomeEnum, someString) {
case (.b, .some(let unwrappedSomething)) where unwrappedSomething.hasPrefix("so"):
print("case .b, \(unwrappedSomething) is unwrapped, and it has `so` prefix")
case (.a, .none):
print("case .a, and optional is nil")
default:
print("Something else")
}
You can also do an if statement
if case let (.b, .some(unwrappedSomething)) = (esomeEnum, someString), unwrappedSomething.hasPrefix("so") {
} else if case (.a, .none) = (esomeEnum, someString) {
} else {
}

Swift 3 generics / associated types limitations with protocols

I have a generic protocol:
protocol SectionType {
associatedtype I: Equatable
associatedtype T: Equatable
var info: I? { get }
var items: [T] { get }
}
and an Array extension for it:
/// Offers additional method(s) to process SectionType list.
extension Array where Element: SectionType {
/// Dummy comparision method. Implementation is not that relevant but just to employ Equatable.
/// - Parameter to: Another array of sections.
/// - Returns: True if first info and first elemements in both arrays exist and both are equal.
func dummyCompare(with otherArray: [Element]) -> Bool {
guard
let first = self.first,
let firstOther = otherArray.first,
let firstElement = first.items.first,
let firstOtherElement = firstOther.items.first,
let firstInfo = first.info, let firstOtherInfo = firstOther.info
else { return false }
return firstInfo == firstOtherInfo && firstElement == firstOtherElement
}
}
No problem when using with concrete implementations:
Example 1: Works with specific implementation with build-in String type:
Declaration:
struct StringSection: SectionType {
let info: String?
let items: [String]
}
Usage:
let stringSection1 = StringSection(info: "Info 1", items: ["Item 1", "Item 2"])
let stringSection2 = StringSection(info: "Info 2", items: ["Item 3", "Item 4"])
let stringSections1 = [stringSection1, stringSection2]
let stringSections2 = [stringSection2, stringSection1]
var areEqual = stringSections1.dummyCompare(with: stringSections2)
print("String section 1 equals 2?: \(areEqual)")
Example 2 - Works with specific implementation with custom types:
Declarations:
protocol SectionInfoType {
var title: String { get }
}
/// BTW: This is just Swift's stragne way of implementing Equatable protocol for your type:
func == (lhs: SectionInfoType, rhs: SectionInfoType) -> Bool {
return lhs.title == rhs.title
}
struct SpecificSectionInfo: SectionInfoType, Equatable {
let title: String
static func == (lhs: SpecificSectionInfo, rhs: SpecificSectionInfo) -> Bool {
return lhs.title == rhs.title
}
}
protocol SectionItemType {
var text: String { get }
}
/// BTW: This is just Swift's stragne way of implementing Equatable protocol for your type:
func == (lhs: SectionItemType, rhs: SectionItemType) -> Bool {
return lhs.text == rhs.text
}
struct SpecificSectionItem: SectionItemType, Equatable {
let text: String
static func == (lhs: SpecificSectionItem, rhs: SpecificSectionItem) -> Bool {
return lhs.text == rhs.text
}
}
struct SpecificSection: SectionType {
let info: SpecificSectionInfo?
let items: [SpecificSectionItem]
}
Usage:
let specInfo1 = SpecificSectionInfo(title: "Info 1")
let specItem1 = SpecificSectionItem(text: "Specific item 1")
let specItem2 = SpecificSectionItem(text: "Specific item 2")
let specInfo2 = SpecificSectionInfo(title: "Info 2")
let specItem3 = SpecificSectionItem(text: "Specific item 3")
let specItem4 = SpecificSectionItem(text: "Specific item 4")
let specSection1 = SpecificSection(info: specInfo1, items: [specItem1, specItem2])
let specSection2 = SpecificSection(info: specInfo2, items: [specItem3, specItem4])
let specSections1 = [specSection1, specSection2]
let specSections2 = [specSection2, specSection1]
let areEqual = specSections1.dummyCompare(with: specSections2)
print("Specific section 1 equals 2?: \(areEqual)")
So far, so good, everything works and compiles. But ... I have at least 2 problems with this approach:
Problem 1:
Just from 2 examples above, one can see that this approach needs 'specific' implementation of a SectionType protocol for every combination of info and items type. This seems not so efficient (tremendous amount of code for every each implementation) nor generic.
What I need is a more generalised embodiment of SectionType protocol where types for info and items need to be protocols (provided from external APIs as protocols).
A perfect example (but does not compile):
struct Section: SectionType {
typealias I = SectionInfoType
typealias T = SectionItemType
let info: I?
let items: [T]
}
Problem 2:
I need to be able to pass it over to other protocol oriented API, f.ex.: as an argument to function like:
func consume(section: SectionType<SectionInfoType, SectionItemType>) {}
But above function declaration produces:
Cannot specialize non-generic type 'SectionType'
with Xcode proposing a fix: 'Delete <SectionInfoType, SectionItemType>' resulting in this:
func consume(section: SectionType) {}
This does not compile neither and I can not find a way to make it work.
Is it possible to do or is that Swift 3 limitation (I am using Swift 3.1)?
I created Git repository demonstrating those issues. Feel free to collaborate:
https://github.com/lukaszmargielewski/swift3-learning-generics
If I understand correctly problem 2 you want your a function that consumes a generic variable that is also specialised, adhering to protocol SectionType. Try:
func consume<Section: SectionType>(section: Section) {
let foo = section.info
let foobar = section.items
}

Is there way to define compare (`==`) function automatically for `struct` in Swift?

Let's assume we have a pretty big struct in Swift:
struct SuperStruct {
var field1: Int = 0
var field2: String = ""
// lots of lines...
var field512: Float = 0.0
}
.. and then we need to implement Equatable protocol:
extension SuperStruct: Equatable {
}
func ==(lhs: SuperStruct, rhs: SuperStruct) -> Bool {
return
lhs.field1 == rhs.field1 &&
lhs.field2 == rhs.field2 &&
// lots of lines...
lhs.field512 == rhs.field512
}
... and we need to write lots of lines of stupid code.
Is there a way "to ask" compiler "to do" it for us?
The following answer shows one possible solution; possibly not a recommended one (however possibly of interest for future readers of this question).
If you have a large number of properties which all belong to a somewhat limited of number different types, you could use a Mirror of your structure instances and iterate over over the structures' properties; for each attempting conversion to the different types that you know your properties to be.
I've edited the previous answer (to something I believe is quite much neater), after watching the following WWDC 2015 session (thanks Leo Dabus!):
WWDC 2015 session 408. Recommended.
I'll leave the initial answer in the bottom of this answer as well, as it shows an alternative, less protocol-oriented approach, to make use of this Mirror solution.
Mirror & protocol-oriented solution:
/* Let a heterogeneous protocol act as "pseudo-generic" type
for the different (property) types in 'SuperStruct' */
protocol MyGenericType {
func isEqualTo(other: MyGenericType) -> Bool
}
extension MyGenericType where Self : Equatable {
func isEqualTo(other: MyGenericType) -> Bool {
if let o = other as? Self { return self == o }
return false
}
}
/* Extend types that appear in 'SuperStruct' to MyGenericType */
extension Int : MyGenericType {}
extension String : MyGenericType {}
extension Float : MyGenericType {}
// ...
/* Finally, 'SuperStruct' conformance to Equatable */
func ==(lhs: SuperStruct, rhs: SuperStruct) -> Bool {
let mLhs = Mirror(reflecting: lhs).children.filter { $0.label != nil }
let mRhs = Mirror(reflecting: rhs).children.filter { $0.label != nil }
for i in 0..<mLhs.count {
guard let valLhs = mLhs[i].value as? MyGenericType, valRhs = mRhs[i].value as? MyGenericType else {
print("Invalid: Properties 'lhs.\(mLhs[i].label!)' and/or 'rhs.\(mRhs[i].label!)' are not of 'MyGenericType' types.")
return false
}
if !valLhs.isEqualTo(valRhs) {
return false
}
}
return true
}
Example usage:
/* Example */
var a = SuperStruct()
var b = SuperStruct()
a == b // true
a.field1 = 2
a == b // false
b.field1 = 2
b.field2 = "Foo"
a.field2 = "Foo"
a == b // true
Previous Mirror solution:
/* 'SuperStruct' conformance to Equatable */
func ==(lhs: SuperStruct, rhs: SuperStruct) -> Bool {
let mLhs = Mirror(reflecting: lhs).children.filter { $0.label != nil }
let mRhs = Mirror(reflecting: rhs).children.filter { $0.label != nil }
for i in 0..<mLhs.count {
switch mLhs[i].value {
case let valLhs as Int:
guard let valRhs = mRhs[i].value as? Int where valRhs == valLhs else {
return false
}
case let valLhs as String:
guard let valRhs = mRhs[i].value as? String where valRhs == valLhs else {
return false
}
case let valLhs as Float:
guard let valRhs = mRhs[i].value as? Float where valRhs == valLhs else {
return false
}
/* ... extend with one case for each type
that appear in 'SuperStruct' */
case _ : return false
}
}
return true
}
Example usage:
/* Example */
var a = SuperStruct()
var b = SuperStruct()
a == b // true
a.field1 = 2
a == b // false
b.field1 = 2
b.field2 = "Foo"
a.field2 = "Foo"
a == b // true
In Swift 4.1, Equatable/Hashable types now synthesize conformance to Equatable/Hashable if all of the types' members are Equatable/Hashable
SE-0185
Synthesizing Equatable and Hashable conformance
Developers have to write large amounts of boilerplate code to support equatability and hashability of complex types. This proposal offers a way for the compiler to automatically synthesize conformance to Equatable and Hashable to reduce this boilerplate, in a subset of scenarios where generating the correct implementation is known to be possible.
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0185-synthesize-equatable-hashable.md
You could make the struct Codable and compare the JSON encoded Data. Not efficient, but could be useful for some applications (e.g. unit tests).
struct SuperStruct: Encodable {
var field1: Int = 0
// ....
var field512: Float = 0.0
}
let s1 = SuperStruct()
let s2 = SuperStruct()
let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let data1 = try! encoder.encode(s1)
let data2 = try! encoder.encode(s2)
let result = (data1 == data2)
If you like this you could tidy it up into a protocol extension of Encodable.
No, it doesn't. At least not in any way that's not excessively complicated and based on use (abuse?) of runtime introspection. See dfri's answer for something that technically works, but that is way more complicated than just writing an == implementation that directly compares all fields.
As for your opinions on what "should" be available in Swift, you're more likely to see some effect if you share them with Apple or with the Swift open source community.

Using reflection to set object properties without using setValue forKey

In Swift it's not possible use .setValue(..., forKey: ...)
nullable type fields like Int?
properties that have an enum as it's type
an Array of nullable objects like [MyObject?]
There is one workaround for this and that is by overriding the setValue forUndefinedKey method in the object itself.
Since I'm writing a general object mapper based on reflection. See EVReflection I would like to minimize this kind of manual mapping as much as possible.
Is there an other way to set those properties automatically?
The workaround can be found in a unit test in my library here
This is the code:
class WorkaroundsTests: XCTestCase {
func testWorkarounds() {
let json:String = "{\"nullableType\": 1,\"status\": 0, \"list\": [ {\"nullableType\": 2}, {\"nullableType\": 3}] }"
let status = Testobject(json: json)
XCTAssertTrue(status.nullableType == 1, "the nullableType should be 1")
XCTAssertTrue(status.status == .NotOK, "the status should be NotOK")
XCTAssertTrue(status.list.count == 2, "the list should have 2 items")
if status.list.count == 2 {
XCTAssertTrue(status.list[0]?.nullableType == 2, "the first item in the list should have nullableType 2")
XCTAssertTrue(status.list[1]?.nullableType == 3, "the second item in the list should have nullableType 3")
}
}
}
class Testobject: EVObject {
enum StatusType: Int {
case NotOK = 0
case OK
}
var nullableType: Int?
var status: StatusType = .OK
var list: [Testobject?] = []
override func setValue(value: AnyObject!, forUndefinedKey key: String) {
switch key {
case "nullableType":
nullableType = value as? Int
case "status":
if let rawValue = value as? Int {
status = StatusType(rawValue: rawValue)!
}
case "list":
if let list = value as? NSArray {
self.list = []
for item in list {
self.list.append(item as? Testobject)
}
}
default:
NSLog("---> setValue for key '\(key)' should be handled.")
}
}
}
I found a way around this when I was looking to solve a similar problem - that KVO can't set the value of a pure Swift protocol field. The protocol has to be marked #objc, which caused too much pain in my code base.
The workaround is to look up the Ivar using the objective C runtime, get the field offset, and set the value using a pointer.
This code works in a playground in Swift 2.2:
import Foundation
class MyClass
{
var myInt: Int?
}
let instance = MyClass()
// Look up the ivar, and it's offset
let ivar: Ivar = class_getInstanceVariable(instance.dynamicType, "myInt")
let fieldOffset = ivar_getOffset(ivar)
// Pointer arithmetic to get a pointer to the field
let pointerToInstance = unsafeAddressOf(instance)
let pointerToField = UnsafeMutablePointer<Int?>(pointerToInstance + fieldOffset)
// Set the value using the pointer
pointerToField.memory = 42
assert(instance.myInt == 42)
Notes:
This is probably pretty fragile, you really shouldn't use this.
But maybe it could live in a thoroughly tested and updated reflection library until Swift gets a proper reflection API.
It's not that far away from what Mirror does internally, see the code in Reflection.mm, around here: https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/swift-2.2-branch/stdlib/public/runtime/Reflection.mm#L719
The same technique applies to the other types that KVO rejects, but you need to be careful to use the right UnsafeMutablePointer type. Particularly with protocol vars, which are 40 or 16 bytes, unlike a simple class optional which is 8 bytes (64 bit). See Mike Ash on the topic of Swift memory layout: https://mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2014-08-01-exploring-swift-memory-layout-part-ii.html
Edit: There is now a framework called Runtime at https://github.com/wickwirew/Runtime which provides a pure Swift model of the Swift 4+ memory layout, allowing it to safely calculate the equivalent of ivar_getOffset without invoking the Obj C runtime. This allows setting properties like this:
let info = try typeInfo(of: User.self)
let property = try info.property(named: "username")
try property.set(value: "newUsername", on: &user)
This is probably a good way forward until the equivalent capability becomes part of Swift itself.
Swift 5
To set and get properties values with pure swift types you can use internal ReflectionMirror.swift approach with shared functions:
swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveCount
swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildMetadata
swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildOffset
The idea is to gain info about an each property of an object and then set a value to a needed one by its pointer offset.
There is example code with KeyValueCoding protocol for Swift that implements setValue(_ value: Any?, forKey key: String) method:
typealias NameFreeFunc = #convention(c) (UnsafePointer<CChar>?) -> Void
struct FieldReflectionMetadata {
let name: UnsafePointer<CChar>? = nil
let freeFunc: NameFreeFunc? = nil
let isStrong: Bool = false
let isVar: Bool = false
}
#_silgen_name("swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveCount")
fileprivate func swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveCount(_: Any.Type) -> Int
#_silgen_name("swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildMetadata")
fileprivate func swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildMetadata(
_: Any.Type
, index: Int
, fieldMetadata: UnsafeMutablePointer<FieldReflectionMetadata>
) -> Any.Type
#_silgen_name("swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildOffset")
fileprivate func swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildOffset(_: Any.Type, index: Int) -> Int
protocol Accessors {}
extension Accessors {
static func set(value: Any?, pointer: UnsafeMutableRawPointer) {
if let value = value as? Self {
pointer.assumingMemoryBound(to: self).pointee = value
}
}
}
struct ProtocolTypeContainer {
let type: Any.Type
let witnessTable = 0
var accessors: Accessors.Type {
unsafeBitCast(self, to: Accessors.Type.self)
}
}
protocol KeyValueCoding {
}
extension KeyValueCoding {
private mutating func withPointer<Result>(displayStyle: Mirror.DisplayStyle, _ body: (UnsafeMutableRawPointer) throws -> Result) throws -> Result {
switch displayStyle {
case .struct:
return try withUnsafePointer(to: &self) {
let pointer = UnsafeMutableRawPointer(mutating: $0)
return try body(pointer)
}
case .class:
return try withUnsafePointer(to: &self) {
try $0.withMemoryRebound(to: UnsafeMutableRawPointer.self, capacity: 1) {
try body($0.pointee)
}
}
default:
fatalError("Unsupported type")
}
}
public mutating func setValue(_ value: Any?, forKey key: String) {
let mirror = Mirror(reflecting: self)
guard let displayStyle = mirror.displayStyle
, displayStyle == .class || displayStyle == .struct
else {
return
}
let type = type(of: self)
let count = swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveCount(type)
for i in 0..<count {
var field = FieldReflectionMetadata()
let childType = swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildMetadata(type, index: i, fieldMetadata: &field)
defer { field.freeFunc?(field.name) }
guard let name = field.name.flatMap({ String(validatingUTF8: $0) }),
name == key
else {
continue
}
let clildOffset = swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveChildOffset(type, index: i)
try? withPointer(displayStyle: displayStyle) { pointer in
let valuePointer = pointer.advanced(by: clildOffset)
let container = ProtocolTypeContainer(type: childType)
container.accessors.set(value: value, pointer: valuePointer)
}
break
}
}
}
This approach works with both class and struct and supports optional, enum and inherited(for classes) properties:
// Class
enum UserType {
case admin
case guest
case none
}
class User: KeyValueCoding {
let id = 0
let name = "John"
let birthday: Date? = nil
let type: UserType = .none
}
var user = User()
user.setValue(12345, forKey: "id")
user.setValue("Bob", forKey: "name")
user.setValue(Date(), forKey: "birthday")
user.setValue(UserType.admin, forKey: "type")
print(user.id, user.name, user.birthday!, user.type)
// Outputs: 12345 Bob 2022-04-22 10:41:10 +0000 admin
// Struct
struct Book: KeyValueCoding {
let id = 0
let title = "Swift"
let info: String? = nil
}
var book = Book()
book.setValue(56789, forKey: "id")
book.setValue("ObjC", forKey: "title")
book.setValue("Development", forKey: "info")
print(book.id, book.title, book.info!)
// Outputs: 56789 ObjC Development
if you are afraid to use #_silgen_name for shared functions you can access to it dynamically with dlsym e.g.: dlsym(RTLD_DEFAULT, "swift_reflectionMirror_recursiveCount") etc.
UPDATE
There is a swift package (https://github.com/ikhvorost/KeyValueCoding) with full implementation of KeyValueCoding protocol for pure Swift and it supports: get/set values to any property by a key, subscript, get a metadata type, list of properties and more.
Unfortunately, this is impossible to do in Swift.
KVC is an Objective-C thing. Pure Swift optionals (combination of Int and Optional) do not work with KVC. The best thing to do with Int? would be to replace with NSNumber? and KVC will work. This is because NSNumber is still an Objective-C class. This is a sad limitation of the type system.
For your enums though, there is still hope. This will not, however, reduce the amount of coding that you would have to do, but it is much cleaner and at its best, mimics the KVC.
Create a protocol called Settable
protocol Settable {
mutating func setValue(value:String)
}
Have your enum confirm to the protocol
enum Types : Settable {
case FirstType, SecondType, ThirdType
mutating func setValue(value: String) {
if value == ".FirstType" {
self = .FirstType
} else if value == ".SecondType" {
self = .SecondType
} else if value == ".ThirdType" {
self = .ThirdType
} else {
fatalError("The value \(value) is not settable to this enum")
}
}
}
Create a method: setEnumValue(value:value, forKey key:Any)
setEnumValue(value:String forKey key:Any) {
if key == "types" {
self.types.setValue(value)
} else {
fatalError("No variable found with name \(key)")
}
}
You can now call self.setEnumValue(".FirstType",forKey:"types")

In Swift, is it possible to convert a string to an enum?

If I have an enum with the cases a,b,c,d is it possible for me to cast the string "a" as the enum?
Sure. Enums can have a raw value. To quote the docs:
Raw values can be strings, characters, or any of the integer or
floating-point number types
β€” Excerpt From: Apple Inc. β€œThe Swift Programming Language.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/jEUH0.l,
So you can use code like this:
enum StringEnum: String
{
case one = "value one"
case two = "value two"
case three = "value three"
}
let anEnum = StringEnum(rawValue: "value one")!
print("anEnum = \"\(anEnum.rawValue)\"")
Note: You don't need to write = "one" etc. after each case. The default string values are the same as the case names so calling .rawValue will just return a string
EDIT
If you need the string value to contain things like spaces that are not valid as part of a case value then you need to explicitly set the string. So,
enum StringEnum: String
{
case one
case two
case three
}
let anEnum = StringEnum.one
print("anEnum = \"\(anEnum)\"")
gives
anEnum = "one"
But if you want case one to display "value one" you will need to provide the string values:
enum StringEnum: String
{
case one = "value one"
case two = "value two"
case three = "value three"
}
All you need is:
enum Foo: String {
case a, b, c, d
}
let a = Foo(rawValue: "a")
assert(a == Foo.a)
let πŸ’© = Foo(rawValue: "πŸ’©")
assert(πŸ’© == nil)
In Swift 4.2, the CaseIterable protocol can be used for an enum with rawValues, but the string should match against the enum case labels:
enum MyCode : String, CaseIterable {
case one = "uno"
case two = "dos"
case three = "tres"
static func withLabel(_ label: String) -> MyCode? {
return self.allCases.first{ "\($0)" == label }
}
}
usage:
print(MyCode.withLabel("one")) // Optional(MyCode.one)
print(MyCode(rawValue: "uno")) // Optional(MyCode.one)
In case with an enum with Int type you can do it so:
enum MenuItem: Int {
case One = 0, Two, Three, Four, Five //... as much as needs
static func enumFromString(string:String) -> MenuItem? {
var i = 0
while let item = MenuItem(rawValue: i) {
if String(item) == string { return item }
i += 1
}
return nil
}
}
And use:
let string = "Two"
if let item = MenuItem.enumFromString(string) {
//in this case item = 1
//your code
}
Riffing on djruss70's answer to create highly generalized solution:
extension CaseIterable {
static func from(string: String) -> Self? {
return Self.allCases.first { string == "\($0)" }
}
func toString() -> String { "\(self)" }
}
Usage:
enum Chassis: CaseIterable {
case pieridae, oovidae
}
let chassis: Chassis = Chassis.from(string: "oovidae")!
let string: String = chassis.toString()
Note: this will unfortunately not work if the enum is declared #objc. As far as I know as of Swift 5.3 there is no way to get this to work with #objc enum's except brute force solutions (a switch statement).
If someone happens to know of a way to make this work for #objc enums, I'd be very interested in the answer.
Swift 4.2:
public enum PaymentPlatform: String, CaseIterable {
case visa = "Visa card"
case masterCard = "Master card"
case cod = "Cod"
var nameEnum: String {
return Mirror(reflecting: self).children.first?.label ?? String(describing: self)
}
func byName(name: String) -> PaymentPlatform {
return PaymentPlatform.allCases.first(where: {$0.nameEnum.elementsEqual(name)}) ?? .cod
}
}
Extending Duncan C's answer
extension StringEnum: StringLiteralConvertible {
init(stringLiteral value: String){
self.init(rawValue: value)!
}
init(extendedGraphemeClusterLiteral value: String) {
self.init(stringLiteral: value)
}
init(unicodeScalarLiteral value: String) {
self.init(stringLiteral: value)
}
}
For Int enum and their String representation, I declare enum as follows:
enum OrderState: Int16, CustomStringConvertible {
case waiting = 1
case inKitchen = 2
case ready = 3
var description: String {
switch self {
case .waiting:
return "Waiting"
case .inKitchen:
return "InKitchen"
case .ready:
return "Ready"
}
}
static func initialize(stringValue: String)-> OrderState? {
switch stringValue {
case OrderState.waiting.description:
return OrderState.waiting
case OrderState.inKitchen.description:
return OrderState.inKitchen
case OrderState.ready.description:
return OrderState.ready
default:
return nil
}
}
}
Usage:
order.orderState = OrderState.waiting.rawValue
let orderState = OrderState.init(rawValue: order.orderState)
let orderStateStr = orderState?.description ?? ""
print("orderStateStr = \(orderStateStr)")
I used this:
public enum Currency: CaseIterable, Codable {
case AFN = 971 // Afghani (minor=2)
case DZD = 012 // Algerian Dinar (minor=2)
...
private static var cachedLookup: [String: Currency] = [:]
init?(string: String) {
if Self.cachedLookup.isEmpty {
Self.cachedLookup = Dictionary(uniqueKeysWithValues: Self.allCases.map { ("\($0)", $0) })
}
if let currency = Self.cachedLookup[string] {
self = currency
return
} else {
return nil
}
}
}
I found the other answers make this way more complicated then it needs to be. Here is a quick and concise example.
enum Gender: String {
case male, female, unspecified
}
Simple enum, note that I added ": String" to the enum itself to declare the type as string.
Now all you have to do is:
let example: Gender = Gender(rawValue: "male")
And thats it, 'example' is now an enum of type Gender with the value of .male
There is literally nothing else you need to do in Swift 4+.