What I want to accomplish is to pass the dynamic type of object as a parameter to generic function. I'm able to see the correct type I want with type(of:), but I'm unable to pass it as parameter, because in generic function I'm still getting the static type.
Here is an example what I want to do:
protocol SomeUsefulProtocol {}
struct MyType1: SomeUsefulProtocol {}
struct MyType2: SomeUsefulProtocol {}
let objects: [SomeUsefulProtocol] = [MyType1(), MyType2()]
let someClosureToWorkWithMyType: Any = { (object: MyType1) in
//Do some great things
}
func someMethod<T>(type: T.Type, object: Any) {
typealias ClosureType = (T) -> Void
if let closure = someClosureToWorkWithMyType as? ClosureType, let object = object as? T {
closure(object)
}
}
for object in objects {
someMethod(type: type(of: object), object: object)
}
Here i want closure someClosureToWorkWithMyType to be called when object has a type 'MyType1', but inside the method the type of object is the static type (SomeUsefulProtocol).
The problem here is that object as declared as an instance of the protocol SomeUsefulProtocol. An instance of a protocol is not any specific concrete type, and can be one of potentially many concrete types.
Swift's generics system requires known concrete types at compile time to create the right specializations. There are a number of blog posts and StackOverflow questions and answers which delve deeper into the trickiness (and more often than not, the futility)of trying to use Swift protocols and Swift generics together.
In your specific example, your method can be made to work in one of two ways: either don't declare object as a protocol instance, but instead make it a concrete type, e.g.
let object: MyType = MyType()
Or keep it declared as-is, but cast it to a concrete type when passing it into your function, e.g.
(object as? MyType).flatMap{ someMethod(type: type(of: $0), object: $0) }
Related
I am very confused around the concept of "metatype" in the Swift language.
Suppose I have:
class SomeClass {
class func callClassMethod() {
print("I'm a class method. I belong to my type.")
}
func callInstanceMethod() {
print("I'm an instance method. I belong to my type instance.")
}
}
According to the definition:
A metatype type refers to the type of any type, including class types,
structure types, enumeration types, and protocol types.
SomeClass is already a type called SomeClass, then what exactly is the type of SomeClass?
I can create a SomeClass.Type variable:
let var1 : SomeClass.Type = SomeClass.self
var1.doIt();//"I'm a class method. I belong to my type."
but I can also call the static/class function this way:
SomeClass.doIt();//"I'm a class method. I belong to my type."
Are they the same?
They are the same because the compiler guarantees that class names are unique (Swift is name spaced by module), so there is only one thing that is of SomeClass.Type and that is the class SomeClass. The meta type is often useful when you just want to pass the type of something to a function but you don't want to pass an instance. Codable does this for instance:
let decoded = try decoder.decode(SomeType.self, from: data)
If you could not pass the meta type here then the compiler could still infer the return type based on an annotation on the left, but it would be less readable:
let decoded: Sometype = try decoder.decode(data)
Some libraries do use the type inference style instead, although the Apple preference seems to be to use the meta type as its clearer what the right side of the assignment is on its own, without relying on type inference from the left side of the assignment.
I'm a developer on Java and I'm trying to write in Swift the same solution that I have in Java code.
Is it possible to do this on Swift?
Example Java:
public interface Converter<S,T> {
T convert(S in)
}
public class CarConverterToDTO implements Converter<Car, CarDTO> {
#Override
public CarDTO convert(Car in) {
.....
}
}
Example Swift:
protocol Converter {
func convert<IN, OUT>(in: IN) -> OUT
}
How it would be the implementation?
Thanks!!!
What appears to be a simple question is actually the tip of a rather large and unpleasant iceberg…
I'm going to start by giving you what is probably the real solution to your problem:
class Converter<Input, Output> {
func convert(_ input: Input) -> Output {
fatalError("subclass responsibility")
}
}
struct Car { }
struct CarDTO { }
class DTOCarConverter: Converter<Car, CarDTO> {
override func convert(_ input: Car) -> CarDTO {
return CarDTO()
}
}
Above, I've translated your Java Converter interface into a Swift class instead of a Swift protocol. That's probably what you want.
Now I'll explain why.
A programmer coming from Java to Swift might think that a Swift protocol is the equivalent of a Java interface. So you might write this:
protocol Converter {
associatedtype Input
associatedtype Output
func convert(_ input: Input) -> Output
}
struct Car { }
struct CarDTO { }
class /* or struct */ DTOCarConverter: Converter {
func convert(_ input: Car) -> CarDTO {
return CarDTO()
}
}
Okay, now you can create a converter and convert something:
let converter = DTOCarConverter()
let car = Car()
let dto = converter.convert(car)
But you're going to run into a problem as soon as you want to write a function that takes a Converter as an argument:
func useConverter(_ converter: Converter) { }
// ^
// error: protocol 'Converter' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
“Well, duh,” you say, “you forgot the type arguments!” But no, I didn't. Swift doesn't allow explicit type arguments after a protocol name:
func useConverter(_ converter: Converter<Car, CarDTO>) { }
// ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// error: cannot specialize non-generic type 'Converter'
I don't want to get into why you can't do this. Just accept that a Swift protocol is not generally equivalent to a Java interface.
A Swift protocol with no associated types and no mention of Self is, generally, equivalent to a non-generic Java interface. But a Swift protocol with associated types (or that mentions Self) is not really equivalent to any Java construct.
When discussing this problem, we often use the acronym “PAT”, which stands for “Protocol with Associated Types” (and includes protocols that mention Self). A PAT doesn't define a type that you can use as a function argument, return value, or property value. There's not much you can do with a PAT:
You can define a subprotocol. For example, Equatable is a PAT because it defines the == operator to take two arguments of type Self. Hashable is a subprotocol of Equatable.
You can use a PAT as a type constraint. For example, Set is a generic type. Set's type parameter is named Element. Set constrains its Element to be Hashable.
So you can't write a function that takes a plain Converter as an argument. But you can write a function that takes any implementation of Converter as an argument, by making the function generic:
func useConverter<MyConverter: Converter>(_ converter: MyConverter)
where MyConverter.Input == Car, MyConverter.Output == CarDTO
{ }
That compiles just fine. But sometimes it's inconvenient to make your function generic.
And there's another problem that this doesn't solve. You might want a container that holds various Converters from Car to CarDTO. That is, you might want something like this:
var converters: [Converter<Car, CarDTO>] = []
// ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// error: cannot specialize non-generic type 'Converter'
We can't fix this by making converters generic, like we did with the useConverter function.
What you end up needing is a “type-erased wrapper”. Note that “type-erased” here has a different meaning that Java's “type erasure”. In fact it's almost the opposite of Java's type erasure. Let me explain.
If you look in the Swift standard library, you'll find types whose names start with Any, like AnyCollection. These are mostly “type-erased wrappers” for PATs. An AnyCollection conforms to Collection (which is a PAT), and wraps any type that conforms to Collection. For example:
var carArray = Array<Car>()
let carDictionary = Dictionary<String, Car>()
let carValues = carDictionary.values
// carValues has type Dictionary<String, Car>.Values, which is not an array but conforms to Collection
// This doesn't compile:
carArray = carValues
// ^~~~~~~~~
// error: cannot assign value of type 'Dictionary<String, Car>.Values' to type '[Car]'
// But we can wrap both carArray and carValues in AnyCollection:
var anyCars: AnyCollection<Car> = AnyCollection(carArray)
anyCars = AnyCollection(carValues)
Note that we have to explicitly wrap our other collections in AnyCollection. The wrapping is not automatic.
Here's why I say this is almost the opposite of Java's type erasure:
Java preserves the generic type but erases the type parameter. A java.util.ArrayList<Car> in your source code turns into a java.util.ArrayList<_> at runtime, and a java.util.ArrayList<Truck> also becomes a java.util.ArrayList<_> at runtime. In both cases, we preserve the container type (ArrayList) but erase the element type (Car or Truck).
The Swift type-erasing wrapper erases the generic type but preserves the type parameter. We turn an Array<Car> into an AnyCollection<Car>. We also turn a Dictionary<String, Car>.Values into an AnyCollection<Car>. In both cases, we lose the original container type (Array or Dictionary.Values) but preserve the element type (Car).
So anyway, for your Converter type, one solution to storing Converters in a container is to write an AnyConverter type-erased wrapper. For example:
struct AnyConverter<Input, Output>: Converter {
init<Wrapped: Converter>(_ wrapped: Wrapped) where Wrapped.Input == Input, Wrapped.Output == Output {
self.convertFunction = { wrapped.convert($0) }
}
func convert(_ input: Input) -> Output { return convertFunction(input) }
private let convertFunction: (Input) -> Output
}
(There are multiple ways to implement type-erased wrappers. That is just one way.)
You can then use AnyConverter in property types and function arguments, like this:
var converters: [AnyConverter<Car, CarDTO>] = [AnyConverter(converter)]
func useConverters(_ converters: [AnyConverter<Car, CarDTO>]) {
let car = Car()
for c in converters {
print("dto = \(c.convert(car))")
}
}
But now you should ask: what's the point? Why bother making Converter a protocol at all, if I'm going to have to use a type-erased wrapper? Why not just use a base class to define the interface, with subclasses implementing it? Or a struct with some closures provided at initialization (like the AnyConverter example above)?
Sometimes, there's not a good reason to use a protocol, and it's more sensible to just use a class hierarchy or a struct. So you should take a good look at how you're implementing and using your Converter type and see if a non-protocol approach is simpler. If it is, try a design like I showed at the top of this answer: a base class defining the interface, and subclasses implementing it.
The Swift equivalent to your Java code looks like this.
protocol Converter {
associatedtype Input
associatedtype Output
func convert(input: Input) -> Output
}
class CarConverterToDTO: Converter {
typealias Input = Car
typealias Output = CarDTO
func convert(input: Car) -> CarDTO {
return CarDTO()
}
}
Explanation
The equivalent to a generic Java interface in Swift, would be a protocol with associatedtypes.
protocol Converter {
associatedtype Input
associatedtype Output
}
To create an implementation of that protocol, the implementation must specify which types the associated types maps to, using typealias.
class CarConverterToDTO: Converter {
typealias Input = Car
typealias Output = CarDTO
}
Type Erasure
If you try to use to this approach, you may run into the issue of trying to store an instance of your generic protocol in a variable or property, in which case you will get the compiler error:
protocol 'Converter' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
The way to solve this issue in Swift, is by using type erasure, where you create a new implementation of your generic protocol, that itself is a generic type (struct or class), and uses a constructor accepting a generic argument, matching your protocol, like so:
struct AnyConverter<Input, Output>: Converter {
// We don't need to specify type aliases for associated types, when the type
// itself has generic parameters, whose name matches the associated types.
/// A reference to the `convert(input:)` method of a converter.
private let _convert: (Input) -> Output
init<C>(_ converter: C) where C: Converter, C.Input == Input, C.Output == Output {
self._convert = converter.convert(input:)
}
func convert(input: Input) -> Output {
return self._convert(input)
}
}
This is usually accompanied by an extension function on the generic protocol, that performs the type erasure by creating an instance of AnyConverter<Input, Output> using self, like so:
extension Converter {
func asConverter() -> AnyConverter<Input, Output> {
return AnyConverter(self)
}
}
Using type erasure, you can now create code that accepts a generic Converter (by using AnyConverter<Input, Output>), that maps Car to CarDTO:
let car: Car = ...
let converter: AnyConverter<Car, CarDTO> = ...
let dto: CarDTO = converter.convert(input: car)
I am trying to understand : "self, dynamicType, Type". I have this code :
class SomeClass {}
let cls : SomeClass.Type = SomeClass.self
let cls2 : SomeClass = SomeClass()
Are cls and cls2 the same thing ?
Can someone give some detail about the differences ? Thanks
No, cls and cls2 are different things. The easiest way to understand the difference will be to extend your example like this:
class SomeClass {
class func doIt() {
print("I'm a class method. I belong to my type.")
}
func doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType() {
print("I'm a instance method. I belong to my type instance.")
}
}
And now let's take your cls:
let cls : SomeClass.Type = SomeClass.self
cls.doIt()
That will print I'm a class method. I belong to my type.. But you cannot invoke this:
cls.doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType() // causes a compilation error, PRO TIP: actually you can use this method as a func property, but I'll add the explanation for this later
Let's take your cls2. The only visible method of it is doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType because it's an instance method (of this type).
let cls2 : SomeClass = SomeClass()
cls2.doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType()
So the difference between them is that cls is a type and cls2 is an instance of this type.
A little bit more knowledge about why SomeClass.self and SomeClass()?
The type of a class also exists in memory (it has for example its own methods), as a singleton representing the Type (not an instance of this type - that's something different).
If you call self on a Type like this SomeClass.self you will get a singleton instance representing the SomeClass Type.
SomeClass() invokes the init() method of SomeClass, a constructor that creates an instance of SomeClass.
PRO Tip
You can manipulate a Type instance function (like closures/blocks in ObjC). It's a generated class method. But you must pass an instance of the type that you take this method from as an argument, like this:
let myFunc :()->() = cls.doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType(cls2)
myFunc()
A metatype type refers to the type of any type, including class types, structure types, enumeration types, and protocol types.
You can use the postfix self expression to access a type as a value. For example, SomeClass.self returns SomeClass itself, not an instance of SomeClass. And SomeProtocol.self returns SomeProtocol itself, not an instance of a type that conforms to SomeProtocol at runtime. You can use a dynamicType expression with an instance of a type to access that instance’s dynamic, runtime type as a value, as the following example shows:
class SomeBaseClass {
class func printClassName() {
print("SomeBaseClass")
}
}
class SomeSubClass: SomeBaseClass {
override class func printClassName() {
print("SomeSubClass")
}
}
let someInstance: SomeBaseClass = SomeSubClass()
someInstance.dynamicType.printClassName()
// prints "SomeSubClass"
The compile-time type of someInstance is SomeBaseClass,
the runtime type of someInstance is SomeSubClass
You can use the identity operators (=== and !==) to test whether an instance’s runtime type is the same as its compile-time type.
if someInstance.dynamicType === SomeBaseClass.self {
print("The dynamic type of someInstance is SomeBaseCass")
} else {
print("The dynamic type of someInstance isn't SomeBaseClass")
}
More detail -> The Swift Programming Language: Types
Swift 3.0:
.dynamicType is deprecated, you should use type(of:) to get its meta type:
type(of: someInstance).printClassName()
I am trying to understand : "self, dynamicType, Type". I have this code :
class SomeClass {}
let cls : SomeClass.Type = SomeClass.self
let cls2 : SomeClass = SomeClass()
Are cls and cls2 the same thing ?
Can someone give some detail about the differences ? Thanks
No, cls and cls2 are different things. The easiest way to understand the difference will be to extend your example like this:
class SomeClass {
class func doIt() {
print("I'm a class method. I belong to my type.")
}
func doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType() {
print("I'm a instance method. I belong to my type instance.")
}
}
And now let's take your cls:
let cls : SomeClass.Type = SomeClass.self
cls.doIt()
That will print I'm a class method. I belong to my type.. But you cannot invoke this:
cls.doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType() // causes a compilation error, PRO TIP: actually you can use this method as a func property, but I'll add the explanation for this later
Let's take your cls2. The only visible method of it is doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType because it's an instance method (of this type).
let cls2 : SomeClass = SomeClass()
cls2.doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType()
So the difference between them is that cls is a type and cls2 is an instance of this type.
A little bit more knowledge about why SomeClass.self and SomeClass()?
The type of a class also exists in memory (it has for example its own methods), as a singleton representing the Type (not an instance of this type - that's something different).
If you call self on a Type like this SomeClass.self you will get a singleton instance representing the SomeClass Type.
SomeClass() invokes the init() method of SomeClass, a constructor that creates an instance of SomeClass.
PRO Tip
You can manipulate a Type instance function (like closures/blocks in ObjC). It's a generated class method. But you must pass an instance of the type that you take this method from as an argument, like this:
let myFunc :()->() = cls.doItOnlyIfInstanceOfThisType(cls2)
myFunc()
A metatype type refers to the type of any type, including class types, structure types, enumeration types, and protocol types.
You can use the postfix self expression to access a type as a value. For example, SomeClass.self returns SomeClass itself, not an instance of SomeClass. And SomeProtocol.self returns SomeProtocol itself, not an instance of a type that conforms to SomeProtocol at runtime. You can use a dynamicType expression with an instance of a type to access that instance’s dynamic, runtime type as a value, as the following example shows:
class SomeBaseClass {
class func printClassName() {
print("SomeBaseClass")
}
}
class SomeSubClass: SomeBaseClass {
override class func printClassName() {
print("SomeSubClass")
}
}
let someInstance: SomeBaseClass = SomeSubClass()
someInstance.dynamicType.printClassName()
// prints "SomeSubClass"
The compile-time type of someInstance is SomeBaseClass,
the runtime type of someInstance is SomeSubClass
You can use the identity operators (=== and !==) to test whether an instance’s runtime type is the same as its compile-time type.
if someInstance.dynamicType === SomeBaseClass.self {
print("The dynamic type of someInstance is SomeBaseCass")
} else {
print("The dynamic type of someInstance isn't SomeBaseClass")
}
More detail -> The Swift Programming Language: Types
Swift 3.0:
.dynamicType is deprecated, you should use type(of:) to get its meta type:
type(of: someInstance).printClassName()
I'm trying to store a type in a variable so that I can use it like a 1st class type later on.
class SomeModel {}
let someType = SomeModel.self
let array = Array<someType>()
In this case sure I could have done Array<SomeModel>() instead but I want to generalize it and let subclasses provide the value of someType.
However I get errors like someType isn't a type or use of undeclared type 'someType' on the last line.
If you need to store several type values in array, this works pretty well:
let array: [Any.Type] = [String.self, Int.self]
func someFunc<T>(model: T) -> Array<T> {
let array = Array<T>()
return array
}
let someType = SomeModel.self
let array = someFunc(someType())
Looks like this does what I want. The only drawback is that I have to create an instance of the desired type to pass. In this case its minimal overhead, but it just seems like a waste.
Another thing with using generics like this is it appears that the generic's possible types are computed at compile time, so at run time model.dynamicType doesn't necessarily match T. In most cases it will, but if you are doing any reflection driven stuff make sure to really check your use case well.
These days, this can be more easily and adaptably achieved by using .Type on a class or protocol. Note that only functions available to that root class or protocol will be accessible however, so you should ensure that a required initialiser of some kind is defined. For example:
protocol MyClass {
init(someValue: Int)
}
class MyWrapper {
let myClassType: MyClass.Type
init(classType: MyClass.Type) {
self.myClassType = classType
}
func new(with value: Int) -> MyClassType {
return MyClassType.init(someValue: value)
}
}
You can now initialise this rather silly factory class with a specific class implementing the MyClass protocol and when you call the new() function with an integer value it will generate a new instance of that class and return it.