Here a function b calls a and passes a completion block:
func a(completion: (_ succeeded: Bool)) {
completion(true)
}
func b() {
a() { succeeded in
...
}
}
Can I use a protocol function definition to define the block?
Something like this (which does not work):
protocol P {
func c(succeeded: Bool)
}
func a(completion: P) {
completion.c(succeeded: true)
}
func b() {
a() { c(succeeded) in
...
}
}
Note: I am not looking for the protocol/delegate concept.
The issue with using a protocol here is that functions cannot conform to a protocol, only classes, enums and structs can conform to a protocol. So you either need one of these types or an instance of one of these types, but then the instance seems superfluous. If you really want to do it the protocol way here is an example with static conformance on an enum:
import UIKit
protocol Callable {
static func call(someString: String, someInt: Int)
}
enum MyCallable: Callable {
static func call(someString: String, someInt: Int) {
print(someString, someInt)
}
}
func someFunction<T: Callable>(callable: T.Type) {
callable.call(someString: "a",someInt: 1)
}
someFunction(callable: MyCallable.self)
You can use a labeled tuple to give yourself argument labels if that is what you are after. Here is a playground example:
import UIKit
typealias MyArguements = (someInt: Int, someString: String)
func someFunction( completion: #escaping (MyArguements) -> Void) {
completion((someInt: 1, someString: "a"))
}
someFunction { tuple in
let (someInt, someString) = tuple
print(someInt, someString)
}
This is a basic example of creating an array of protocols with associated types using type erasure:
protocol ProtocolA {
associatedtype T
func doSomething() -> T
}
struct AnyProtocolA<T>: ProtocolA {
private let _doSomething: (() -> T)
init<U: ProtocolA>(someProtocolA: U) where U.T == T {
_doSomething = someProtocolA.doSomething
}
func doSomething() -> T {
return _doSomething()
}
}
Creating an array of them isn't hard:
let x: [AnyProtocolA<Any>] = []
Is there any way way I can create an array of protocols which have associated types that are constrained? This is what I have tried:
protocol Validateable {
// I removed the functions and properties here to omit unreleveant code.
}
protocol ProtocolA {
associatedtype T: Validateable
func doSomething() -> T
}
struct AnyProtocolA<T: Validateable>: ProtocolA {
private let _doSomething: (() -> T)
init<U: ProtocolA>(someProtocolA: U) where U.T == T {
_doSomething = someProtocolA.doSomething
}
func doSomething() -> T {
return _doSomething()
}
}
It compiles! But didn't it defeated the chance of creating an array of AnyProtocolA's now? Now I can't use type Any as a placeholder in my array.
How do I create an array of AnyProtocolA's which has a constrained associated type? Is it even possible? This won't work since Any ofcourse doesn't conform to Validateable:
let x: [AnyProtocolA<Any>] = []
Extending Any can't be done:
extension Any: Validateable {} // Non nominal type error
Edit:
I think I already found it, just type erasure the protocol Validateable as well:
protocol Validateable {
// I removed the functions and properties here to omit unreleveant code.
}
protocol ProtocolA {
associatedtype T: Validateable
func doSomething() -> T
}
struct AnyProtocolA<T: Validateable>: ProtocolA {
private let _doSomething: (() -> T)
init<U: ProtocolA>(someProtocolA: U) where U.T == T {
_doSomething = someProtocolA.doSomething
}
func doSomething() -> T {
return _doSomething()
}
}
struct AnyValidateable<T>: Validateable {}
Now I can use it as:
let x: [AnyProtocolA<AnyValidateable<Any>>] = []
Any answers that are better are always welcome :)
I have a protocol P that returns a copy of the object:
protocol P {
func copy() -> Self
}
and a class C that implements P:
class C : P {
func copy() -> Self {
return C()
}
}
However, whether I put the return value as Self I get the following error:
Cannot convert return expression of type 'C' to return type 'Self'
I also tried returning C.
class C : P {
func copy() -> C {
return C()
}
}
That resulted in the following error:
Method 'copy()' in non-final class 'C' must return Self to conform
to protocol 'P'
Nothing works except for the case where I prefix class C with final ie do:
final class C : P {
func copy() -> C {
return C()
}
}
However if I want to subclass C then nothing would work. Is there any way around this?
The problem is that you're making a promise that the compiler can't prove you'll keep.
So you created this promise: Calling copy() will return its own type, fully initialized.
But then you implemented copy() this way:
func copy() -> Self {
return C()
}
Now I'm a subclass that doesn't override copy(). And I return a C, not a fully-initialized Self (which I promised). So that's no good. How about:
func copy() -> Self {
return Self()
}
Well, that won't compile, but even if it did, it'd be no good. The subclass may have no trivial constructor, so D() might not even be legal. (Though see below.)
OK, well how about:
func copy() -> C {
return C()
}
Yes, but that doesn't return Self. It returns C. You're still not keeping your promise.
"But ObjC can do it!" Well, sort of. Mostly because it doesn't care if you keep your promise the way Swift does. If you fail to implement copyWithZone: in the subclass, you may fail to fully initialize your object. The compiler won't even warn you that you've done that.
"But most everything in ObjC can be translated to Swift, and ObjC has NSCopying." Yes it does, and here's how it's defined:
func copy() -> AnyObject!
So you can do the same (there's no reason for the ! here):
protocol Copyable {
func copy() -> AnyObject
}
That says "I'm not promising anything about what you get back." You could also say:
protocol Copyable {
func copy() -> Copyable
}
That's a promise you can make.
But we can think about C++ for a little while and remember that there's a promise we can make. We can promise that we and all our subclasses will implement specific kinds of initializers, and Swift will enforce that (and so can prove we're telling the truth):
protocol Copyable {
init(copy: Self)
}
class C : Copyable {
required init(copy: C) {
// Perform your copying here.
}
}
And that is how you should perform copies.
We can take this one step further, but it uses dynamicType, and I haven't tested it extensively to make sure that is always what we want, but it should be correct:
protocol Copyable {
func copy() -> Self
init(copy: Self)
}
class C : Copyable {
func copy() -> Self {
return self.dynamicType(copy: self)
}
required init(copy: C) {
// Perform your copying here.
}
}
Here we promise that there is an initializer that performs copies for us, and then we can at runtime determine which one to call, giving us the method syntax you were looking for.
With Swift 2, we can use protocol extensions for this.
protocol Copyable {
init(copy:Self)
}
extension Copyable {
func copy() -> Self {
return Self.init(copy: self)
}
}
There is another way to do what you want that involves taking advantage of Swift's associated type. Here's a simple example:
public protocol Creatable {
associatedtype ObjectType = Self
static func create() -> ObjectType
}
class MyClass {
// Your class stuff here
}
extension MyClass: Creatable {
// Define the protocol function to return class type
static func create() -> MyClass {
// Create an instance of your class however you want
return MyClass()
}
}
let obj = MyClass.create()
Actually, there is a trick that allows to easily return Self when required by a protocol (gist):
/// Cast the argument to the infered function return type.
func autocast<T>(some: Any) -> T? {
return some as? T
}
protocol Foo {
static func foo() -> Self
}
class Vehicle: Foo {
class func foo() -> Self {
return autocast(Vehicle())!
}
}
class Tractor: Vehicle {
override class func foo() -> Self {
return autocast(Tractor())!
}
}
func typeName(some: Any) -> String {
return (some is Any.Type) ? "\(some)" : "\(some.dynamicType)"
}
let vehicle = Vehicle.foo()
let tractor = Tractor.foo()
print(typeName(vehicle)) // Vehicle
print(typeName(tractor)) // Tractor
Swift 5.1 now allow a forced cast to Self, as! Self
1> protocol P {
2. func id() -> Self
3. }
9> class D : P {
10. func id() -> Self {
11. return D()
12. }
13. }
error: repl.swift:11:16: error: cannot convert return expression of type 'D' to return type 'Self'
return D()
^~~
as! Self
9> class D : P {
10. func id() -> Self {
11. return D() as! Self
12. }
13. } //works
Following on Rob's suggestion, this could be made more generic with associated types. I've changed the example a bit to demonstrate the benefits of the approach.
protocol Copyable: NSCopying {
associatedtype Prototype
init(copy: Prototype)
init(deepCopy: Prototype)
}
class C : Copyable {
typealias Prototype = C // <-- requires adding this line to classes
required init(copy: Prototype) {
// Perform your copying here.
}
required init(deepCopy: Prototype) {
// Perform your deep copying here.
}
#objc func copyWithZone(zone: NSZone) -> AnyObject {
return Prototype(copy: self)
}
}
I had a similar problem and came up with something that may be useful so I though i'd share it for future reference because this is one of the first places I found when searching for a solution.
As stated above, the problem is the ambiguity of the return type for the copy() function. This can be illustrated very clearly by separating the copy() -> C and copy() -> P functions:
So, assuming you define the protocol and class as follows:
protocol P
{
func copy() -> P
}
class C:P
{
func doCopy() -> C { return C() }
func copy() -> C { return doCopy() }
func copy() -> P { return doCopy() }
}
This compiles and produces the expected results when the type of the return value is explicit. Any time the compiler has to decide what the return type should be (on its own), it will find the situation ambiguous and fail for all concrete classes that implement the P protocol.
For example:
var aC:C = C() // aC is of type C
var aP:P = aC // aP is of type P (contains an instance of C)
var bC:C // this to test assignment to a C type variable
var bP:P // " " " P " "
bC = aC.copy() // OK copy()->C is used
bP = aC.copy() // Ambiguous.
// compiler could use either functions
bP = (aC as P).copy() // but this resolves the ambiguity.
bC = aP.copy() // Fails, obvious type incompatibility
bP = aP.copy() // OK copy()->P is used
In conclusion, this would work in situations where you're either, not using the base class's copy() function or you always have explicit type context.
I found that using the same function name as the concrete class made for unwieldy code everywhere, so I ended up using a different name for the protocol's copy() function.
The end result is more like:
protocol P
{
func copyAsP() -> P
}
class C:P
{
func copy() -> C
{
// there usually is a lot more code around here...
return C()
}
func copyAsP() -> P { return copy() }
}
Of course my context and functions are completely different but in spirit of the question, I tried to stay as close to the example given as possible.
Just throwing my hat into the ring here. We needed a protocol that returned an optional of the type the protocol was applied on. We also wanted the override to explicitly return the type, not just Self.
The trick is rather than using 'Self' as the return type, you instead define an associated type which you set equal to Self, then use that associated type.
Here's the old way, using Self...
protocol Mappable{
static func map() -> Self?
}
// Generated from Fix-it
extension SomeSpecificClass : Mappable{
static func map() -> Self? {
...
}
}
Here's the new way using the associated type. Note the return type is explicit now, not 'Self'.
protocol Mappable{
associatedtype ExplicitSelf = Self
static func map() -> ExplicitSelf?
}
// Generated from Fix-it
extension SomeSpecificClass : Mappable{
static func map() -> SomeSpecificClass? {
...
}
}
To add to the answers with the associatedtype way, I suggest to move the creating of the instance to a default implementation of the protocol extension. In that way the conforming classes won't have to implement it, thus sparing us from code duplication:
protocol Initializable {
init()
}
protocol Creatable: Initializable {
associatedtype Object: Initializable = Self
static func newInstance() -> Object
}
extension Creatable {
static func newInstance() -> Object {
return Object()
}
}
class MyClass: Creatable {
required init() {}
}
class MyOtherClass: Creatable {
required init() {}
}
// Any class (struct, etc.) conforming to Creatable
// can create new instances without having to implement newInstance()
let instance1 = MyClass.newInstance()
let instance2 = MyOtherClass.newInstance()
Is there any way to use array of protocol's generic?
For example,
/* I want to use protocol like below,
* but I can't because protocol is not concrete
* so cannot make array of it */
class MyClass<T where T:MyProtocol, T:[MyProtocol]> {
let result: T
}
protocol MyProtocol {
init(with: String)
}
class SpecialThing: MyProtocol {
let appleWatch: AppleWatch
init(with: String) {
self.appleWatch = AppleWatch(with)
}
}
class SampleClass {
func test {
typealias listCallback = (MyClass<[SpecialThing]>, NSError) -> ()
typealias oneCallback = (MyClass<SpecialThing>, NSError) -> ()
}
}
There can be one object or array of protocol's subclass.
I think "typealias" does not help me.
I want to find something more simple way.....
My first issue with this is that the type signature is wrong:
class MyClass<T where T:MyProtocol, T:[MyProtocol]>
That's the same type of thing as doing:
let t: String
let t: [String]
t = String("foo")
The compiler will complain because you are redefining T, once as a MyProtocol and again as an array of MyProtocol. You can't have both, you can only have one.
Answer: Use a construct like Either:
enum Either<T, U>
{
case Left(T)
case Right(U)
var leftValue: T?
{
if case .Left(let leftValue) = self
{
return leftValue
}
return nil
}
var rightValue: U?
{
if case .Right(let rightValue) = self
{
return rightValue
}
return nil
}
}
Allowing for:
class MyClass<T: MyProtocol>
{
let result: Either<T, [MyProtocol]>
}
Consider the following:
protocol Foo {
typealias A
func hello() -> A
}
protocol FooBar: Foo {
func hi() -> A
}
extension FooBar {
func hello() -> A {
return hi()
}
}
class FooBarClass: FooBar {
typealias A = String
func hi() -> String {
return "hello world"
}
}
This code compiles. But if I comment out explicit definition of associated type typealias A = String, then for some reason, swiftc fails to infer the type.
I'm sensing this has to do with two protocols sharing the same associated type but without a direct assertion through, for example, type parameterization (maybe associated type is not powerful/mature enough?), which makes it ambiguous for type inference.
I'm not sure if this is a bug / immaturity of the language, or maybe, I'm missing some nuances in protocol extension which rightfully lead to this behaviour.
Can someone shed some light on this?
look at this example
protocol Foo {
typealias A
func hello() -> A
}
protocol FooBar: Foo {
typealias B
func hi() -> B
}
extension FooBar {
func hello() -> B {
return hi()
}
}
class FooBarClass: FooBar {
//typealias A = String
func hi() -> String {
return "hello world"
}
}
with generics
class FooBarClass<T>: FooBar {
var t: T?
func hi() -> T? {
return t
}
}
let fbc: FooBarClass<Int> = FooBarClass()
fbc.t = 10
fbc.hello() // 10
fbc.hi() // 10
Providing explicit values for associated types in a protocol is required for conformance to said protocol. This can be accomplished by hard coding a type, as you've done with typealias A = String, or using a parameterized type as you mentioned, such as below:
class FooBarClass<T>: FooBar {
typealias A = T
...
}
Swift will not infer your associated type from an implemented method of the protocol, as there could be ambiguity with multiple methods with mismatching types. This is why the typealias must be explicitly resolved in your implementing class.