I've started working through a textbook that talks about protocol oriented programming in Swift. As I'm writing out the code in a playground I noticed that one of the methods from the book uses the keyword 'static'. To my understanding, a static method means that this method is to be called by the type itself and not by specific instances of the type. Also my understanding is that, static methods can't be overridden.
Since protocols are only method signatures when their being declared, I thought it was kind of odd to see the keyword 'static' being used because we'll have to implement the stub of the function when we conform to the protocol anyway.
To start thinking in an abstract way, I'd like to know if protocol methods are meant to be overridden in Swift or does the use of the keyword 'static' simply makes it to where only the type itself can call a method versus its instances calling the method?
protocol YourProtocol {
//property requirements that types that conform to this protocl MUST implement
var gettableProperty: String { get }
var gettableSettableProperty: Int { get set }
//method requirements that types that conform to this protocol MUST implement
func someMethod(parameter1: Double) -> String
static func staticMethod() -> Float
}
You are right that static methods cannot be overriden because they are always tied to one specific type, however, a static method declaration in a protocol can be implemented using a class method. And class methods can be overriden:
protocol YourProtocol {
static func staticMethod() -> Float
}
class A: YourProtocol {
class func staticMethod() -> Float {
return 1.0
}
}
class B: A {
override class func staticMethod() -> Float {
return 2.0
}
}
Also, the ability to be overriden is not the core point. I think the concept can be better understood on a static constant or a static variable getter, taking an example from the static library:
public protocol FloatingPoint: ... {
public static var pi: Self { get }
}
This protocol is implemented by all floating point types, e.g. Double and Float which are not even classes therefore they don't support inheritance and overriding. The fact that even their static constants are declared in a protocol can be then used when declaring a generic method that uses this protocol as a type constraint:
func toDegrees<T: FloatingPoint>(radians: T) -> T {
// the .pi here is a static var getter
return radians * 180 / T.pi
}
Related
If I declare
public class A: NSObject {
public class X { }
public init?(x: X? = nil) { }
}
all is fine. When using it like let a = A(), the initializer is called as expected.
Now, I'd like to have the nested class X private, and the parameterized init as well (has to be, of course). But a simple init?() should stay publicly available as it was before. So I write
public class B: NSObject {
private class X { }
private init?(x: X?) { }
public convenience override init?() { self.init(x: nil) }
}
But this gives an error with the init?() initializer: failable initializer 'init()' cannot override a non-failable initializer with the overridden initializer being the public init() in NSObject.
How comes I can effectively declare an initializer A.init?() without the conflict but not B.init?()?
Bonus question: Why am I not allowed to override a non-failable initializer with a failable one? The opposite is legal: I can override a failable initializer with a non-failable, which requires using a forced super.init()! and thus introduces the risk of a runtime error. To me, letting the subclass have the failable initializer feels more sensible since an extension of functionality introduces more chance of failure. But maybe I am missing something here – explanation greatly appreciated.
This is how I solved the problem for me:
I can declare
public convenience init?(_: Void) { self.init(x: nil) }
and use it like
let b = B(())
or even
let b = B()
— which is logical since its signature is (kind of) different, so no overriding here. Only using a Void parameter and omitting it in the call feels a bit strange… But the end justifies the means, I suppose. :-)
After a bit of fiddling I think I understand. Let's consider a protocol requiring this initializer and a class implementing it:
protocol I {
init()
}
class A : I {
init() {}
}
This gives the error: "Initializer requirement 'init()' can only be satisfied by a required initializer in non-final class 'A'". This makes sense, as you could always declare a subclass of A that doesn't inherit that initializer:
class B : A {
// init() is not inherited
init(n: Int) {}
}
So we need to make our initializer in A required:
class A : I {
required init() {}
}
Now if we look at the NSObject interface we can see that the initializer is not required:
public class NSObject : NSObjectProtocol {
[...]
public init()
[...]
}
We can confirm this by subclassing it, adding a different initializer and trying to use the normal one:
class MyObject : NSObject {
init(n: Int) {}
}
MyObject() // Error: Missing argument for parameter 'n:' in call
Now here comes the weird thing: We can extend NSObject to conform to the I protocol, even though it doesn't require this initializer:
extension NSObject : I {} // No error (!)
I honestly think this is either a bug or a requirement for ObjC interop to work (EDIT: It's a bug and already fixed in the latest version). This error shouldn't be possible:
extension I {
static func get() -> Self { return Self() }
}
MyObject.get()
// Runtime error: use of unimplemented initializer 'init()' for class '__lldb_expr_248.MyObject'
Now to answer your actual question:
In your second code sample, the compiler is right in that you cannot override a non-failable with a failable initializer.
In the first one, you aren't actually overriding the initializer (no override keyword either), but instead declaring a new one by which the other one can't be inherited.
Now that I wrote this much I'm not even sure what the first part of my answer has to do with your question, but it's nice to find a bug anyways.
I suggest you to do this instead:
public convenience override init() { self.init(x: nil)! }
Also have a look at the Initialization section of the Swift reference.
I want to use a strategy pattern to register a set of objects that implement a protocol. When I set this up, I get a compile error when trying to set the delegate that is part of the protocol.
For discussion purposes, I have slightly reworked the DiceGame from the Swift eBook's Delegation chapter. The changes of significance are:
protocol DiceGame - declares a delegate
class SnakesAndLadders implements DiceGame (and therefore the protocol and delegate)
class Games holds 3 instances of SnakesAndLadders as
1) a concrete class of SnakesAndLadders
2) a 'let' constant of protocol DiceGame
3) a 'var' variable of protocol DiceGame
We can set the delegate fine if we use the concrete class (snakesAndLadders). However, there is a compile error if we use 'let' to hold it as a protocol (diceGameAsLet) but it compiles if we hold the variable as a 'var' (diceGameAsVar).
It is easy to work around, however, the delegate itself never changes so should be held as a 'let' constant, as it is only the internal property that changes. I must not understand something (possibly subtle but significant) about protocols and how they work and should be used.
class Dice
{
func roll() -> Int
{
return 7 // always win :)
}
}
protocol DiceGame
{
// all DiceGames must work with a DiceGameDelegate
var delegate:DiceGameDelegate? {get set}
var dice: Dice {get}
func play()
}
protocol DiceGameDelegate
{
func gameDidStart( game:DiceGame )
func gameDidEnd( game:DiceGame )
}
class SnakesAndLadders:DiceGame
{
var delegate:DiceGameDelegate?
let dice = Dice()
func play()
{
delegate?.gameDidStart(self)
playGame()
delegate?.gameDidEnd(self)
}
private func playGame()
{
print("Playing the game here...")
}
}
class Games : DiceGameDelegate
{
let snakesAndLadders = SnakesAndLadders()
// hold the protocol, not the class
let diceGameAsLet:DiceGame = SnakesAndLadders()
var diceGameAsVar:DiceGame = SnakesAndLadders()
func setupDelegateAsClass()
{
// can assign the delegate if using the class
snakesAndLadders.delegate = self
}
func setupDelegateAsVar()
{
// if we use 'var' we can assign the delegate
diceGameAsVar.delegate = self
}
func setupDelegateAsLet()
{
// DOES NOT COMPILE - Why?
//
// We are not changing the dice game so want to use 'let', but it won't compile
// we are changing the delegate, which is declared as 'var' inside the protocol
diceGameAsLet.delegate = self
}
// MARK: - DiceGameDelegate
func gameDidStart( game:DiceGame )
{
print("Game Started")
}
func gameDidEnd( game:DiceGame )
{
print("Game Ended")
}
}
DiceGame is a heterogeneous protocol that you're using as a type; Swift will treat this type as a value type, and hence (just as for a structures), changing its mutable properties will mutate also the instance of the protocol type itself.
If you, however, add the : class keyword to the DiceGame protocol, Swift will treat it as a reference type, allowing you to mutate members of instances of it, without mutating the instance itself. Note that this will constraint the protocol as conformable to only by class types.
protocol DiceGame: class { ... }
With the addition of the above, the mutation of immutable diceGameAsLet:s properties will be allowed.
In this context, it's worth mentioning that the : class keyword is usually used to constrain protocols used as delegates (e.g., DiceGameDelegate in your example) as conformable to only by class types. With this additional constraint, the delegates can be used as types to which the delegate owner (e.g. some class) only hold a weak reference, useful in contexts where a strong reference to the delegate could create a retain cycle.
See e.g. the 2nd part of this answer for details.
The issue is that when you store something as a Protocol, even if it is a class, swift considers them to be a value type, instead of the reference type you are expecting them to be. Therefore, no part of it is allowed to be changed. Take a look at this reference for more information.
I have some swift structs for which protocol compliance is generated with individual extensions with equal methods names which just differ in their return types which are struct dependent. On top of That I want to use them in a generic function which Calls a protocol conforming function for a generic type).
I tried to accomplish this like that:
//: Playground - noun: a place where people can play
import UIKit
protocol FooProt {
typealias T;
static func createMe<T>()->T;
}
struct FooStruct{
}
extension FooStruct: FooProt{
typealias T = FooStruct;
static func createMe () -> FooStruct{
return FooStruct();
}
}
class Creator{
fun createOne<T where T:FooProt>(type:T.Type){
let instance = T.createMe();
}
}
Unfortunately I get the following error :
/var/folders/sn/78_zvfd15d74dzn01mdv258h0000gq/T/./lldb/3741/playground6.swift:7 :17: note: protocol requires function 'createMe()' with type ' () -> T' (aka '<τ_1_0> () -> τ_1_0')
static func createMe()->T;
What exactly doesn't comply here and is there a workaround ?
There are several problems with your code. On the one hand you have defined a protocol with an associated type. However, you define your createMe() method as a generic which uses some other type. I don't think that was your intent. I think your intent was to have a createMe() method that returns the same type as the protocol's associated type. In this case you need to remove the from the createMe() method. Also, the name createMe() implies that you aren't just returning any type, but the type of the object on which this method is being called. In this case, you don't even need an associated type protocol. You just need a protocol with a Self constraint which allows your code to be a bit simpler. In your Creator's createOne method, your type constraint is more complex than needed.
I think you want the following code:
protocol FooProt {
static func createMe()->Self;
}
struct FooStruct{
}
extension FooStruct: FooProt {
static func createMe() -> FooStruct {
return FooStruct();
}
}
class Creator{
func createOne<T:FooProt>(type: T.Type) -> T {
return T.createMe()
}
}
let foo = Creator().createOne(FooStruct.self)
Here is an alternate solution using an initializer in the protocol instead of a static method.
protocol FooProt {
init()
}
struct FooStruct{
}
extension FooStruct: FooProt {
}
class Creator{
func createOne<T:FooProt>(type: T.Type) -> T {
return T.init()
}
}
let foo = Creator().createOne(FooStruct.self)
protocol Car {
static func foo()
}
struct Truck : Car {
}
extension Car {
static func foo() {
print("bar")
}
}
Car.foo() // Does not work
// Error: Car does not have a member named foo
Truck.foo() // Works
Xcode autocompletes the Car.foo() correctly, so what i'm asking is if its a bug that it doesn't compile (says it does not have a member named foo()). Could you call static methods directly on the protocol if they are defined in a protocol extension?
Apple doc
Protocols do not actually implement any functionality themselves.
Nonetheless, any protocol you create will become a fully-fledged type
for use in your code.
Therefore, you cannot call static methods directly of protocol.
No, the error message isn't good, but it's telling you the correct thing.
Think of it this way, you can't have
protocol Car {
static func foo() {
print("bar")
}
}
This compiles with the error "Protocol methods may not have bodies".
Protocol extensions don't add abilities to protocols which don't exist.
I have a BaseObject model that defines common behaviour I want to share across all my data entities. It has a method like this:
class BaseObject {
static func fetch(block: ((Results<BaseObject>) -> Void)) {
// networking code here
}
}
Naturally, I need the signature of this method be dynamic enough so that a model of class Products
class Products: BaseObject { //...
yields a Results<Product> list instead of Results<BaseObject>. I don't want to re-implement the fetch method in every subclass, because, save for the exact final subclass name used in the body and in the signature, it would be identical.
I cannot use Self:
Do I have any options at all?
You can now do this as of Swift 2.0 as it allows default implementations of methods in protocols. To do so, you would make your base class a protocol, and use Self, as you tried in your example.
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Protocols.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014097-CH25-ID521
Edit:
This compiles in Swift 2.0 / Xcode 7.0 Beta:
class Results<T> {
}
protocol BaseObject {
static func fetch(block: ((Results<Self>) -> Void))
}
extension BaseObject {
static func fetch(block: ((Results<Self>) -> Void)) {
// networking code here
}
}
This feature is only available in Swift 2.0, to my knowledge, there is no solution in Swift 1.2 or previous.