This is more for interest rather than a problem, but I have an NSMutableSet, retrieved from UserDefaults and my objective is to append an item to it and then write it back. I am using an NSMutableSet because I only want unique items to be inserted.
The type of object to be inserted is a custom class, I have overrode hashCode and isEqual.
var stopSet: NSMutableSet = []
if let ud = UserDefaults.standard.object(forKey: "favStops") as? Data {
stopSet = NSKeyedUnarchiver.unarchiveObject(with: ud) as! NSMutableSet
}
stopSet.add(self.theStop!)
let outData = NSKeyedArchiver.archivedData(withRootObject: stopSet)
UserDefaults.standard.set(outData, forKey: "favStops")
NSLog("Saved to UserDefaults")
I get the set, call mySet.add(obj) and then write the set back to UserDefaults. Everything seems to work fine and (as far as I can see) there don't appear to be duplicates.
However is it possible to tell whether a call to mySet.add(obj) actually caused an item to be written to the set. mySet.add(obj) doesn't have a return value and if you use Playgrounds (rather than a project) you get in the output on the right hand side an indication of whether the set was actually changed based on the method call.
I know sets are not meant to store duplicate objects so in theory I should just trust that, but I was just wondering if the set did return a response that you could access - as opposed to just getting the length before the insert and after if I really wanted to know!
Swift has its own native type, Set, so you should use it instead of NSMutableSet.
Set's insert method actually returns a Bool indicating whether the insertion succeeded or not, which you can see in the function signature:
mutating func insert(_ newMember: Element) -> (inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Element)
The following test code showcases this behaviour:
var set = Set<Int>()
let (inserted, element) = set.insert(0)
let (again, newElement) = set.insert(0)
print(inserted,element) //true, 0
print(again,oldElement) //false,0
The second value of the tuple returns the newly inserted element in case the insertion succeeded and the oldElement otherwise. oldElement is not necessarily equal in every aspect to the element you tried to insert. (since for custom types you might define the isEqual method in a way that doesn't compare each property of the type).
You don't need to handle the return value of the insert function, there is no compiler warning if you just write insert like this:
set.insert(1)
Related
I have a global var notes: Set<Note> that contains notes initialized with downloaded data.
In the code below, does Swift know to skip the initialization of my Note object if notes already contains it?
for dictionary in downloadedNoteDictionaries {
let note = Note(dictionary: dictionary)
notes.insert(note)
}
I'm wondering because my app downloads dozens of notes per request and initializing a Note object seems rather computationally expensive.
If the answer to my question is no, then how could I improve my code's performance?
My Note class—which I just realized should probably be a struct instead—has the property let id: Int64 as its sole essential component, but apparently, you can't access an element of a set by its hash value? I don't want to use Set's instance method first(where:) because it has a complexity of O(n), and notes could contain millions of Note objects.
You cannot rely on Swift to eliminate the construction of a new Note in your code. Your Set needs to ask the Note for its hashValue, and may need to call == with your Note as an argument. Those computations require the Note object. Possibly if Swift can inline everything, it can notice that your hashValue and == depend only on the id property, but it is certainly not guaranteed to notice or to act on that information.
It sounds like you should be using an [Int64: Note] instead of a Set<Note>.
No, Swift will not avoid creating the new Note object. The problem here is trying to determine if an object already exists in a set. In order to check if an object already exists in the set, you must have some way to identify this object consistently and have that identification persist across future reads and writes to that set. Assuming we want to adopt Swift's hashing enhancements which deprecates the old methods for having to manually provide a hashValue for any object conforming to the Hashable, we should not use a Set as a solution to this problem. The reason is because Swift's new recommended hashing methods use a random seed to generate hashes for added security. Depending on hash values to identify an element in a set alone would therefore not be possible.
It seems that your method of identifying these objects are by an id. I would do as Rob suggests and use a dictionary where the keys are the id. This would help you answer existential questions in order avoid instantiating a Note object.
If you need the resulting dictionary as a Set, you can still create a new Set from this resulting dictionary sequence.
It is possible to pull out a particular element from a set as long as you know how to identify it, and the operations would be O(1). You would use these two methods:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/set/2996833-firstindex
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/set/2830801-subscript
Here is an example that I was able to run in a playground. However, this assumes that you have a way to identify in your data / model the id of the Note object beforehand in order to avoid creating the Note object. In this case, I am assuming that a Note shares an id with a Dictionary it holds:
import UIKit
struct DictionaryThatNoteUses {
var id: String
init(id: String = UUID().uuidString) {
self.id = id
}
}
struct Note: Hashable {
let dictionary: DictionaryThatNoteUses
var id: String {
return dictionary.id
}
func hash(into hasher: inout Hasher) {
hasher.combine(id)
}
static func == (lhs: Note, rhs: Note) -> Bool {
return lhs.id == rhs.id
}
}
var downloadedNoteDictionaries: [DictionaryThatNoteUses] = [
DictionaryThatNoteUses(),
DictionaryThatNoteUses(),
DictionaryThatNoteUses()
]
var notesDictionary: [String: Note] = [:]
var notesSet: Set<Note> = []
// Add a dictionary with the same id as the first dictionary
downloadedNoteDictionaries.append(downloadedNoteDictionaries.first!) // so now there are four Dictionary objects in this array
func createDictionaryOfNotes() {
func avoidCreatingDuplicateNotesObject(with id: String) {
print("avoided creating duplicate notes object with id \(id)") // prints once because of the duplicated note at the end matching the first, so a new Note object is not instantiated
}
downloadedNoteDictionaries.forEach {
guard notesDictionary[$0.id] == nil else { return avoidCreatingDuplicateNotesObject(with: $0.id) }
let note = Note(dictionary: $0)
notesDictionary[note.id] = note
}
}
createDictionaryOfNotes()
// Obtain a set for set operations on those unique Note objects
notesSet = Set<Note>(notesDictionary.values)
print("number of items in dictionary = \(notesDictionary.count), number of items in set = \(notesSet.count)") // prints 3 and 3 because the 4th object was a duplicate
// Grabbing a specific element from the set
// Let's test with the second Note object from the notesDictionary
let secondNotesObjectFromDictionary = notesDictionary.values[notesDictionary.values.index(notesDictionary.values.startIndex, offsetBy: 1)]
let thirdNotesObjectFromDictionary = notesDictionary.values[notesDictionary.values.index(notesDictionary.values.startIndex, offsetBy: 2)]
if let secondNotesObjectIndexInSet = notesSet.firstIndex(of: secondNotesObjectFromDictionary) {
print("do the two objects match: \(notesSet[secondNotesObjectIndexInSet] == secondNotesObjectFromDictionary)") // prints true
print("does the third object from dictionary match the second object from the set: \(thirdNotesObjectFromDictionary == notesSet[secondNotesObjectIndexInSet])") // prints false
}
I want to convert the results from my Realm data into Int.
Here is an example of how I want to use this.
let results = realm.objects(Data.self)
print(results)
However the result is type Results<Data> and cannot be converted into a Int but the results is an Int.
Just to be clear I want an array of Int from my results
You can simply use Array(realm.objects(RealmType.self)), which will convert the Results<RealmType> instance into an Array<RealmType>.
However, there are other serious flaws with your code. First of all, neither of the last two lines will compile, since firstly realm.objects() accepts a generic input argument of type Object.Type and Data doesn't inherit from Object. You can't directly store Data objects in Realm, you can only store Data as a property of a Realm Object subclass.
Secondly, myArray[results] is simply wrong, since results is supposed to be of type Results<RealmType>, which is a collection, so using it to index an Array cannot work (especially whose Element type is different).
It appears that based on the number of results from the database, you want to select an object from the array.
You can get the number of items in an array with .count. Be certain that an object exists at the specified index in the array, or your application will crash!
let numberOfResults = results.count
if myArray.count > numberOfResults {
let object = myArray[numberOfResults]
print(object)
}
Could you explain why:
when I access an array value using array.first it's optional
when I access from an index value it is not?
Example:
var players = ["Alice", "Bob", "Cindy", "Dan"]
let firstPlayer = players.first
print(firstPlayer) // Optional("Alice")
let firstIndex = players[0]
print(firstIndex) // Alice
(The short answers to this question are great, and exactly what you need. I just wanted to go a bit deeper into the why and how this interacts with Swift Collections more generally and the underlying types. If you just want "how should I use this stuff?" read the accepted answer and ignore all this.)
Arrays follow the rules of all Collections. A Collection must implement the following subscript:
subscript(position: Self.Index) -> Self.Element { get }
So to be a Collection, Array's subscript must accept its Index and unconditionally return an Element. For many kinds of Collections, it is impossible to create an Index that does not exist, but Array uses Int as its Index, so it has to deal with the possibility that you pass an Index that is out of range. In that case, it is impossible to return an Element, and its only option is to fail to return at all. This generally takes the form of crashing the program since it's generally more useful than hanging the program, which is the other option.
(This hides a slight bit of type theory, which is that every function in Swift technically can return "crash," but we don't track that in the type system. It's possible to do that to distinguish between functions that can crash and ones that cannot, but Swift doesn't.)
This should naturally raise the question of why Dictionary doesn't crash when you subscript with a non-existant key. The reason is that Dictionary's Index is not its Key. It has a little-used subscript that provides conformance to Collection (little-used in top-level code, but very commonly used inside of stdlib):
subscript(position: Dictionary<Key, Value>.Index) -> Dictionary.Element { get }
Array could have done this as well, having an Array.Index type that was independent of Int, and making the Int subscript return an Optional. In Swift 1.0, I opened a radar to request exactly that. The team argued that this would make common uses of Array too difficult and that programmers coming to Swift were used to the idea that out-of-range was a programming error (crash). Dictionary, on the other hand, is common to access with non-existant keys, so the Key subscript should be Optional. Several years using Swift has convinced me they were right.
In general you shouldn't subscript arrays unless you got the index from the array (i.e. using index(where:)). But many Cocoa patterns make it very natural to subscript (cellForRow(at:) being the most famous). Still, in more pure Swift code, subscripting with arbitrary Ints often suggests a design problem.
Instead you should often use Collection methods like first and first(where:) which return Optionals and generally safer and clearer, and iterate over them using for-in loops rather than subscripts.
if you want to use subscript and you don't want to have a crash, you can add this extension to your code:
extension Collection {
subscript (safe index: Index) -> Iterator.Element? {
return indices.contains(index) ? self[index] : nil
}
}
and then use it:
let array = [0, 1, 2]
let second = array[safe:1] //Optional(1)
let fourth = array[safe:3] //nil instead of crash
The behavior of first and index subscription is different:
first is declared safely: If the array is empty it returns nil, otherwise the (optional) object.
index subscription is unsafe for legacy reasons: If the array is empty it throws an out-of-range exception otherwise it returns the (non-optional) object
This is because with first, if the Array is empty, the value will be nil. That is why it is an optional. If it is not empty, the first element will be returned.
However, with a subscript (or index value), your program will crash with an error
fatal error: Index out of range
If it is out of range (or is empty) and not return an optional. Else, it will return the element required.
There are default behavior of array property. Array is generic type of Element. When you try to access using first it return as optional.
public var first: Element? { get }
This is available in Array class.
I'm currently reading the excellent Advanced Swift book from objc.io, and I'm running into something that I don't understand.
If you run the following code in a playground, you will notice that when modifying a struct contained in a dictionary a copy is made by the subscript access, but then it appears that the original value in the dictionary is replaced by the copy. I don't understand why. What exactly is happening ?
Also, is there a way to avoid the copy ? According to the author of the book, there isn't, but I just want to be sure.
import Foundation
class Buffer {
let id = UUID()
var value = 0
func copy() -> Buffer {
let new = Buffer()
new.value = self.value
return new
}
}
struct COWStruct {
var buffer = Buffer()
init() { print("Creating \(buffer.id)") }
mutating func change() -> String {
if isKnownUniquelyReferenced(&buffer) {
buffer.value += 1
return "No copy \(buffer.id)"
} else {
let newBuffer = buffer.copy()
newBuffer.value += 1
buffer = newBuffer
return "Copy \(buffer.id)"
}
}
}
var array = [COWStruct()]
array[0].buffer.value
array[0].buffer.id
array[0].change()
array[0].buffer.value
array[0].buffer.id
var dict = ["key": COWStruct()]
dict["key"]?.buffer.value
dict["key"]?.buffer.id
dict["key"]?.change()
dict["key"]?.buffer.value
dict["key"]?.buffer.id
// If the above `change()` was made on a copy, why has the original value changed ?
// Did the copied & modified struct replace the original struct in the dictionary ?
dict["key"]?.change() // Copy
is semantically equivalent to:
if var value = dict["key"] {
value.change() // Copy
dict["key"] = value
}
The value is pulled out of the dictionary, unwrapped into a temporary, mutated, and then placed back into the dictionary.
Because there's now two references to the underlying buffer (one from our local temporary value, and one from the COWStruct instance in the dictionary itself) – we're forcing a copy of the underlying Buffer instance, as it's no longer uniquely referenced.
So, why doesn't
array[0].change() // No Copy
do the same thing? Surely the element should be pulled out of the array, mutated and then stuck back in, replacing the previous value?
The difference is that unlike Dictionary's subscript which comprises of a getter and setter, Array's subscript comprises of a getter and a special accessor called mutableAddressWithPinnedNativeOwner.
What this special accessor does is return a pointer to the element in the array's underlying buffer, along with an owner object to ensure that the buffer isn't deallocated from under the caller. Such an accessor is called an addressor, as it deals with addresses.
Therefore when you say:
array[0].change()
you're actually mutating the actual element in the array directly, rather than a temporary.
Such an addressor cannot be directly applied to Dictionary's subscript because it returns an Optional, and the underlying value isn't stored as an optional. So it currently has to be unwrapped with a temporary, as we cannot return a pointer to the value in storage.
In Swift 3, you can avoid copying your COWStruct's underlying Buffer by removing the value from the dictionary before mutating the temporary:
if var value = dict["key"] {
dict["key"] = nil
value.change() // No Copy
dict["key"] = value
}
As now only the temporary has a view onto the underlying Buffer instance.
And, as #dfri points out in the comments, this can be reduced down to:
if var value = dict.removeValue(forKey: "key") {
value.change() // No Copy
dict["key"] = value
}
saving on a hashing operation.
Additionally, for convenience, you may want to consider making this into an extension method:
extension Dictionary {
mutating func withValue<R>(
forKey key: Key, mutations: (inout Value) throws -> R
) rethrows -> R? {
guard var value = removeValue(forKey: key) else { return nil }
defer {
updateValue(value, forKey: key)
}
return try mutations(&value)
}
}
// ...
dict.withValue(forKey: "key") {
$0.change() // No copy
}
In Swift 4, you should be able to use the values property of Dictionary in order to perform a direct mutation of the value:
if let index = dict.index(forKey: "key") {
dict.values[index].change()
}
As the values property now returns a special Dictionary.Values mutable collection that has a subscript with an addressor (see SE-0154 for more info on this change).
However, currently (with the version of Swift 4 that ships with Xcode 9 beta 5), this still makes a copy. This is due to the fact that both the Dictionary and Dictionary.Values instances have a view onto the underlying buffer – as the values computed property is just implemented with a getter and setter that passes around a reference to the dictionary's buffer.
So when calling the addressor, a copy of the dictionary's buffer is triggered, therefore leading to two views onto COWStruct's Buffer instance, therefore triggering a copy of it upon change() being called.
I have filed a bug over this here. (Edit: This has now been fixed on master with the unofficial introduction of generalised accessors using coroutines, so will be fixed in Swift 5 – see below for more info).
In Swift 4.1, Dictionary's subscript(_:default:) now uses an addressor, so we can efficiently mutate values so long as we supply a default value to use in the mutation.
For example:
dict["key", default: COWStruct()].change() // No copy
The default: parameter uses #autoclosure such that the default value isn't evaluated if it isn't needed (such as in this case where we know there's a value for the key).
Swift 5 and beyond
With the unofficial introduction of generalised accessors in Swift 5, two new underscored accessors have been introduced, _read and _modify which use coroutines in order to yield a value back to the caller. For _modify, this can be an arbitrary mutable expression.
The use of coroutines is exciting because it means that a _modify accessor can now perform logic both before and after the mutation. This allows them to be much more efficient when it comes to copy-on-write types, as they can for example deinitialise the value in storage while yielding a temporary mutable copy of the value that's uniquely referenced to the caller (and then reinitialising the value in storage upon control returning to the callee).
The standard library has already updated many previously inefficient APIs to make use of the new _modify accessor – this includes Dictionary's subscript(_:) which can now yield a uniquely referenced value to the caller (using the deinitialisation trick I mentioned above).
The upshot of these changes means that:
dict["key"]?.change() // No copy
will be able to perform an mutation of the value without having to make a copy in Swift 5 (you can even try this out for yourself with a master snapshot).
I'd like to create a function that will iterate over an array (or collection or sequence). Then I will call that function with an array, and the reversed version of the array (but efficiently: without creating a new array to hold the reverse).
If I do this:
func doIteration(points: [CGPoint]) {
for p in points {
doSomethingWithPoint(p)
}
// I also need random access to points
doSomethingElseWithPoint(points[points.count-2]) // ignore obvious index error
}
And if I have this:
let points : [CGPoint] = whatever
I can do this just fine:
doIteration(points)
But then if I do this:
doIteration(points.reverse())
I get 'Cannot convert value of type 'ReverseRandomAccessCollection<[CGPoint]> to expected argument type [_]'
Now, I DON'T want to do this:
let reversedPoints : [CGPoint] = points.reverse()
doIteration(reversedPoints)
even though it will work, because that will (correct me if I'm wrong) create a new array, initializing it from the ReverseRandomAccessCollection returned by reverse().
So I guess I'd like to write my doIteration function to take some sort of sequence type, so I can pass in the result of reverse() directly, but ReverseRandomAccessCollection doesn't conform to anything at all. I think I'm missing something - what's the accepted pattern here?
If you change your parameter's type to a generic, you should get the functionality you need:
func doIteration
<C: CollectionType where C.Index: RandomAccessIndexType, C.Generator.Element == CGPoint>
(points: C) {
for p in points {
doSomethingWithPoint(p)
}
doSomethingElseWithPoint(points[points.endIndex - 2])
}
More importantly, this won't cause a copy of the array to be made. If you look at the type generated by the reverse() method:
let points: [CGPoint] = []
let reversed = points.reverse() // ReverseRandomAccessCollection<Array<__C.CGPoint>>
doIteration(reversed)
You'll see that it just creates a struct that references the original array, in reverse. (although it does have value-type semantics) And the original function can accept this new collection, because of the correct generic constraints.
You can do this
let reversedPoints : [CGPoint] = points.reverse()
doIteration(reversedPoints)
or this
doIteration(points.reverse() as [CGPoint])
but I don't think there is any real difference by the point of view of a the footprint.
Scenario 1
let reversedPoints : [CGPoint] = points.reverse()
doIteration(reversedPoints)
Infact in this case a new Array containing references to the CGPoint(s) present in the original array is created. This thanks to the Copy-on-write mechanism that Swift used to manage structures.
So the memory allocated is the following:
points.count * sizeOf(pointer)
Scenario 2
On the other hand you can write something like this
doIteration(points.reverse() as [CGPoint])
But are you really saving memory? Let's see.
A temporary variable is created, that variable is available inside the scope of the function doIteration and requires exactly a pointer for each element contained in points so again we have:
points.count * sizeOf(pointer)
So I think you can safely choose one of the 2 solutions.
Considerations
We should remember that Swift manages structures in a very smart way.
When I write
var word = "Hello"
var anotherWord = word
On the first line Swift create a Struct and fill it with the value "Hello".
On the second line Swift detect that there is no real reason to create a copy of the original String so writes inside the anotherWord a reference to the original value.
Only when word or anotherWord is modified Swift really create a copy of the original value.