I'm posting my first message here, I've a logical question about swift language. For your information, I'm quite new in swift language, I'm use to code in c++ and it's a bit hard for me to have an objective point of view on how to do things right (in an elegant way), if you have some advices, pls feel free to do your suggestions.
I'm doing a homemade encapsulation using the following superclass :
class MultiLevel_encapsulation {
var separator = "";
var datas:[String:String] = [:]
func wrap() -> String{
var out:String = ""
var i = 0
for (key, data) in datas{
if i==0{
out += key + separator + data
}
else{
out += separator + key + separator + data
}
i+=1
}
return out
}
func unwrap(content:String){
let split = content.components(separatedBy: separator)
var i = 1
while(i < split.count){
datas[split[i-1]] = split[i]
i += 2
}
}
func getAttributesNames() -> [String]{
var out:[String] = []
for (key, _) in datas{
out.append(key)
}
return out
}
func getValue(name:String) -> String? {
return datas[name];
}
func setValue(name:String, value:String){
datas[name] = value;
}
}
and I want to create some subclasses including the superclass, I just change the separator depending of the subclass name :
class Level5_encapsulation: MultiLevel_encapsulation{
init(message:String) {
super.init()
separator = "&&LEVEL5&&"
unwrap(content:message)
}
override init() {
super.init()
separator = "&&LEVEL5&&"
}
}
So after it I just need to create the subclass as a var in my program, add values and wrap it to have an encapsulated string :
var l5message = Level5_encapsulation()
l5message.setValue(name: #anyTitle#, value: #anyValue#)
var output = l5message.wrap() // String with encapsulated message
Do you think it 's the right way to do it or is there a better way for that ?
My main question is about this compiler warning :
Variable 'l5message' was never mutated; consider changing to 'let' constant
I changed it for a let and it works.
So there is something I don't understand : Why can I change proprieties in the superclass as if the inherited subclass is declared as constant ? Where is the storage of the superclass and how does it works ?
In Swift classes and structs behave a bit differently than in C++. var and let prevent changes to the actual value, and since the variable type that you're using is a class the variable holds a reference, and not the actual data (Like Level5_encapsulation *l5message).
Since you're not mutating the value of the variable (A reference), the compiler raises a warning.
Related
I drank the struct/value koolaid in Swift. And now I have an interesting problem I don't know how to solve. I have a struct which is a container, e.g.
struct Foo {
var bars:[Bar]
}
As I make edits to this, I create copies so that I can keep an undo stack. So far so good. Just like the good tutorials showed. There are some derived attributes that I use with this guy though:
struct Foo {
var bars:[Bar]
var derivedValue:Int {
...
}
}
In recent profiling, I noticed a) that the computation to compute derivedValue is kind of expensive/redundant b) not always necessary to compute in a variety of use cases.
In my classic OOP way, I would make this a memoizing/lazy variable. Basically, have it be nil until called upon, compute it once and store it, and return said result on future calls. Since I'm following a "make copies to edit" pattern, the invariant wouldn't be broken.
But I can't figure out how to apply this pattern if it is struct. I can do this:
struct Foo {
var bars:[Bar]
lazy var derivedValue:Int = self.computeDerivation()
}
which works, until the struct references that value itself, e.g.
struct Foo {
var bars:[Bar]
lazy var derivedValue:Int = self.computeDerivation()
fun anotherDerivedComputation() {
return self.derivedValue / 2
}
}
At this point, the compiler complains because anotherDerivedComputation is causing a change to the receiver and therefore needs to be marked mutating. That just feels wrong to make an accessor be marked mutating. But for grins, I try it, but that creates a new raft of problems. Now anywhere where I have an expression like
XCTAssertEqaul(foo.anotherDerivedComputation(), 20)
the compiler complains because a parameter is implicitly a non mutating let value, not a var.
Is there a pattern I'm missing for having a struct with a deferred/lazy/cached member?
Memoization doesn't happen inside the struct. The way to memoize is to store a dictionary off in some separate space. The key is whatever goes into deriving the value and the value is the value, calculated once. You could make it a static of the struct type, just as a way of namespacing it.
struct S {
static var memo = [Int:Int]()
var i : Int
var square : Int {
if let result = S.memo[i] {return result}
print("calculating")
let newresult = i*i // pretend that's expensive
S.memo[i] = newresult
return newresult
}
}
var s = S(i:2)
s.square // calculating
s = S(i:2)
s.square // [nothing]
s = S(i:3)
s.square // calculating
The only way I know to make this work is to wrap the lazy member in a class. That way, the struct containing the reference to the object can remain immutable while the object itself can be mutated.
I wrote a blog post about this topic a few years ago: Lazy Properties in Structs. It goes into a lot more detail on the specifics and suggest two different approaches for the design of the wrapper class, depending on whether the lazy member needs instance information from the struct to compute the cached value or not.
I generalized the problem to a simpler one: An x,y Point struct, that wants to lazily compute/cache the value for r(adius). I went with the ref wrapper around a block closure and came up with the following. I call it a "Once" block.
import Foundation
class Once<Input,Output> {
let block:(Input)->Output
private var cache:Output? = nil
init(_ block:#escaping (Input)->Output) {
self.block = block
}
func once(_ input:Input) -> Output {
if self.cache == nil {
self.cache = self.block(input)
}
return self.cache!
}
}
struct Point {
let x:Float
let y:Float
private let rOnce:Once<Point,Float> = Once {myself in myself.computeRadius()}
init(x:Float, y:Float) {
self.x = x
self.y = y
}
var r:Float {
return self.rOnce.once(self)
}
func computeRadius() -> Float {
return sqrtf((self.x * self.x) + (self.y * self.y))
}
}
let p = Point(x: 30, y: 40)
print("p.r \(p.r)")
I made the choice to have the OnceBlock take an input, because otherwise initializing it as a function that has a reference to self is a pain because self doesn't exist yet at initialization, so it was easier to just defer that linkage to the cache/call site (the var r:Float)
In the Introduction to Swift WWDC session, a read-only property description is demonstrated:
class Vehicle {
var numberOfWheels = 0
var description: String {
return "\(numberOfWheels) wheels"
}
}
let vehicle = Vehicle()
println(vehicle.description)
Are there any implications to choosing the above approach over using a method instead:
class Vehicle {
var numberOfWheels = 0
func description() -> String {
return "\(numberOfWheels) wheels"
}
}
let vehicle = Vehicle()
println(vehicle.description())
It seems to me that the most obvious reasons for choosing a read-only computed property are:
Semantics - in this example it makes sense for description to be a property of the class, rather than an action it performs.
Brevity/Clarity - prevents the need to use empty parentheses when getting the value.
Clearly the above example is overly simple, but are there other good reasons to choose one over the other? For example, are there some features of functions or properties that would guide your decision of which to use?
N.B. At first glance this seems like quite a common OOP question, but I'm keen to know of any Swift-specific features that would guide best practice when using this language.
It seems to me that it's mostly a matter of style: I strongly prefer using properties for just that: properties; meaning simple values that you can get and/or set. I use functions (or methods) when actual work is being done. Maybe something has to be computed or read from disk or from a database: In this case I use a function, even when only a simple value is returned. That way I can easily see whether a call is cheap (properties) or possibly expensive (functions).
We will probably get more clarity when Apple publishes some Swift coding conventions.
Well, you can apply Kotlin 's advices https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/coding-conventions.html#functions-vs-properties.
In some cases functions with no arguments might be interchangeable
with read-only properties. Although the semantics are similar, there
are some stylistic conventions on when to prefer one to another.
Prefer a property over a function when the underlying algorithm:
does not throw
complexity is cheap to calculate (or caсhed
on the first run)
returns the same result over invocations
While a question of computed properties vs methods in general is hard and subjective, currently there is one important argument in the Swift's case for preferring methods over properties. You can use methods in Swift as pure functions which is not true for properties (as of Swift 2.0 beta). This makes methods much more powerful and useful since they can participate in functional composition.
func fflat<A, R>(f: (A) -> () -> (R)) -> (A) -> (R) {
return { f($0)() }
}
func fnot<A>(f: (A) -> Bool) -> (A) -> (Bool) {
return { !f($0) }
}
extension String {
func isEmptyAsFunc() -> Bool {
return isEmpty
}
}
let strings = ["Hello", "", "world"]
strings.filter(fnot(fflat(String.isEmptyAsFunc)))
There is a difference:
If you use a property you can then eventually override it and make it read/write in a subclass.
Since the runtime is the same, this question applies to Objective-C as well. I'd say, with properties you get
a possibility of adding a setter in a subclass, making the property readwrite
an ability to use KVO/didSet for change notifications
more generally, you can pass property to methods that expect key paths, e.g. fetch request sorting
As for something specific to Swift, the only example I have is that you can use #lazy for a property.
In the read-only case, a computed property should not be considered semantically equivalent to a method, even when they behave identically, because dropping the func declaration blurs the distinction between quantities that comprise the state of an instance and quantities that are merely functions of the state. You save typing () at the call site, but risk losing clarity in your code.
As a trivial example, consider the following vector type:
struct Vector {
let x, y: Double
func length() -> Double {
return sqrt(x*x + y*y)
}
}
By declaring the length as a method, it’s clear that it’s a function of the state, which depends only on x and y.
On the other hand, if you were to express length as a computed property
struct VectorWithLengthAsProperty {
let x, y: Double
var length: Double {
return sqrt(x*x + y*y)
}
}
then when you dot-tab-complete in your IDE on an instance of VectorWithLengthAsProperty, it would look as if x, y, length were properties on an equal footing, which is conceptually incorrect.
From the performance perspective, there seems no difference. As you can see in the benchmark result.
gist
main.swift code snippet:
import Foundation
class MyClass {
var prop: Int {
return 88
}
func foo() -> Int {
return 88
}
}
func test(times: u_long) {
func testProp(times: u_long) -> TimeInterval {
let myClass = MyClass()
let starting = Date()
for _ in 0...times {
_ = myClass.prop
}
let ending = Date()
return ending.timeIntervalSince(starting)
}
func testFunc(times: u_long) -> TimeInterval {
let myClass = MyClass()
let starting = Date()
for _ in 0...times {
_ = myClass.prop
}
let ending = Date()
return ending.timeIntervalSince(starting)
}
print("prop: \(testProp(times: times))")
print("func: \(testFunc(times: times))")
}
test(times: 100000)
test(times: 1000000)
test(times: 10000000)
test(times: 100000000)
Output:
prop: 0.0380070209503174
func: 0.0350250005722046
prop: 0.371925950050354
func: 0.363085985183716
prop: 3.4023300409317
func: 3.38373708724976
prop: 33.5842199325562
func: 34.8433820009232
Program ended with exit code: 0
In Chart:
There are situations where you would prefer computed property over normal functions. Such as: returning the full name of an person. You already know the first name and the last name. So really the fullName property is a property not a function. In this case, it is computed property (because you can't set the full name, you can just extract it using the firstname and the lastname)
class Person{
let firstName: String
let lastName: String
init(firstName: String, lastName: String){
self.firstName = firstName
self.lastName = lastName
}
var fullName :String{
return firstName+" "+lastName
}
}
let william = Person(firstName: "William", lastName: "Kinaan")
william.fullName //William Kinaan
Semantically speaking, computed properties should be tightly coupled with the intrinsic state of the object - if other properties don't change, then querying the computed property at different times should give the same output (comparable via == or ===) - similar to calling a pure function on that object.
Methods on the other hand come out of the box with the assumption that we might not always get the same results, because Swift doesn't have a way to mark functions as pure. Also, methods in OOP are considered actions, which means that executing them might result in side effects. If the method has no side effects, then it can safely be converted to a computed property.
Note that both of the above statements are purely from a semantic perspective, as it might well happen for computed properties to have side effects that we don't expect, and methods to be pure.
Historically description is a property on NSObject and many would expect that it continues the same in Swift. Adding parens after it will only add confusion.
EDIT:
After furious downvoting I have to clarify something - if it is accessed via dot syntax, it can be considered a property. It doesn't matter what's under the hood. You can't access usual methods with dot syntax.
Besides, calling this property did not require extra parens, like in the case of Swift, which may lead to confusion.
An updated/fixed version of Benjamin Wen's answer incorporating Cristik's suggestion.
class MyClass {
var prop: Int {
return 88
}
func foo() -> Int {
return 88
}
}
func test(times: u_long) {
func testProp(times: u_long) -> TimeInterval {
let myClass = MyClass()
let starting = CACurrentMediaTime()
for _ in 0...times {
_ = myClass.prop
}
let ending = CACurrentMediaTime()
return ending - starting
}
func testFunc(times: u_long) -> TimeInterval {
let myClass = MyClass()
let starting = CACurrentMediaTime()
for _ in 0...times {
_ = myClass.foo()
}
let ending = CACurrentMediaTime()
return ending - starting
}
print("prop: \(testProp(times: times))")
print("func: \(testFunc(times: times))")
}
test(times: 100000)
test(times: 1000000)
test(times: 10000000)
test(times: 100000000)
I have this question except for Swift. How do I use a Type variable in a generic?
I tried this:
func intType() -> Int.Type {
return Int.self
}
func test() {
var t = self.intType()
var arr = Array<t>() // Error: "'t' is not a type". Uh... yeah, it is.
}
This didn't work either:
var arr = Array<t.Type>() // Error: "'t' is not a type"
var arr = Array<t.self>() // Swift doesn't seem to even understand this syntax at all.
Is there a way to do this? I get the feeling that Swift just doesn't support it and is giving me somewhat ambiguous error messages.
Edit: Here's a more complex example where the problem can't be circumvented using a generic function header. Of course it doesn't make sense, but I have a sensible use for this kind of functionality somewhere in my code and would rather post a clean example instead of my actual code:
func someTypes() -> [Any.Type] {
var ret = [Any.Type]()
for (var i = 0; i<rand()%10; i++) {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(Int.self) }
else {ret.append(String.self) }
}
return ret
}
func test() {
var ts = self.someTypes()
for t in ts {
var arr = Array<t>()
}
}
Swift's static typing means the type of a variable must be known at compile time.
In the context of a generic function func foo<T>() { ... }, T looks like a variable, but its type is actually known at compile time based on where the function is called from. The behavior of Array<T>() depends on T, but this information is known at compile time.
When using protocols, Swift employs dynamic dispatch, so you can write Array<MyProtocol>(), and the array simply stores references to things which implement MyProtocol — so when you get something out of the array, you have access to all functions/variables/typealiases required by MyProtocol.
But if t is actually a variable of kind Any.Type, Array<t>() is meaningless since its type is actually not known at compile time. (Since Array is a generic struct, the compiler needs know which type to use as the generic parameter, but this is not possible.)
I would recommend watching some videos from WWDC this year:
Protocol-Oriented Programming in Swift
Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift
I found this slide particularly helpful for understanding protocols and dynamic dispatch:
There is a way and it's called generics. You could do something like that.
class func foo() {
test(Int.self)
}
class func test<T>(t: T.Type) {
var arr = Array<T>()
}
You will need to hint the compiler at the type you want to specialize the function with, one way or another. Another way is with return param (discarded in that case):
class func foo() {
let _:Int = test()
}
class func test<T>() -> T {
var arr = Array<T>()
}
And using generics on a class (or struct) you don't need the extra param:
class Whatever<T> {
var array = [T]() // another way to init the array.
}
let we = Whatever<Int>()
jtbandes' answer - that you can't use your current approach because Swift is statically typed - is correct.
However, if you're willing to create a whitelist of allowable types in your array, for example in an enum, you can dynamically initialize different types at runtime.
First, create an enum of allowable types:
enum Types {
case Int
case String
}
Create an Example class. Implement your someTypes() function to use these enum values. (You could easily transform a JSON array of strings into an array of this enum.)
class Example {
func someTypes() -> [Types] {
var ret = [Types]()
for _ in 1...rand()%10 {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(.Int) }
else {ret.append(.String) }
}
return ret
}
Now implement your test function, using switch to scope arr for each allowable type:
func test() {
let types = self.someTypes()
for type in types {
switch type {
case .Int:
var arr = [Int]()
arr += [4]
case .String:
var arr = [String]()
arr += ["hi"]
}
}
}
}
As you may know, you could alternatively declare arr as [Any] to mix types (the "heterogenous" case in jtbandes' answer):
var arr = [Any]()
for type in types {
switch type {
case .Int:
arr += [4]
case .String:
arr += ["hi"]
}
}
print(arr)
I would break it down with the things you already learned from the first answer. I took the liberty to refactor some code. Here it is:
func someTypes<T>(t: T.Type) -> [Any.Type] {
var ret = [Any.Type]()
for _ in 0..<rand()%10 {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(T.self) }
else {
ret.append(String.self)
}
}
return ret
}
func makeArray<T>(t: T) -> [T] {
return [T]()
}
func test() {
let ts = someTypes(Int.self)
for t in ts {
print(t)
}
}
This is somewhat working but I believe the way of doing this is very unorthodox. Could you use reflection (mirroring) instead?
Its possible so long as you can provide "a hint" to the compiler about the type of... T. So in the example below one must use : String?.
func cast<T>(_ value: Any) -> T? {
return value as? T
}
let inputValue: Any = "this is a test"
let casted: String? = cast(inputValue)
print(casted) // Optional("this is a test")
print(type(of: casted)) // Optional<String>
Why Swift doesn't just allow us to let casted = cast<String>(inputValue) I'll never know.
One annoying scenerio is when your func has no return value. Then its not always straightford to provide the necessary "hint". Lets look at this example...
func asyncCast<T>(_ value: Any, completion: (T?) -> Void) {
completion(value as? T)
}
The following client code DOES NOT COMPILE. It gives a "Generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred" error.
let inputValue: Any = "this is a test"
asyncCast(inputValue) { casted in
print(casted)
print(type(of: casted))
}
But you can solve this by providing a "hint" to compiler as follows:
asyncCast(inputValue) { (casted: String?) in
print(casted) // Optional("this is a test")
print(type(of: casted)) // Optional<String>
}
I'm trying to define a Swift class that has a recursive function that returns the names of all the variables in the class. It works for printing it's variables, but when I use this I'll be using it as a base class for my models, and I may have multiple layers of inheritance. I want the method to return an array of all variable names on the current instance, as well as the names of any variables on any super classes, until we reach the base Cool class.
class Cool:NSObject {
func doStuff() -> [String] {
var values = [String]()
let mirrorTypes = reflect(self)
for i in 0 ..< mirrorTypes.count {
let (name, type) = mirrorTypes[i]
if let superCool = super as! Cool while name == "super" {
values += superCool.doStuff()
}
}
return values
}
}
The problem is in:
if let superCool = super as! Cool while name == "super" {
It causes an Expected '.' or '[' after super compiler error.
I have two properties in my class. See this terrible example:
var length
var doubleLength
How do I initialize doubleLength based on length?
init() {
self.length = ...
self.doubleLength = self.length * 2
super.init()
}
I get an error that I can't access self before I call super.init(). Well I need to set all my variables before I can even call super.init() so what am I supposed to do?
if self.doubleLength is always supposed to be twice self.length (in this example) have you considered just using a computed property?
class MyClass: MySuperClass {
var length: Double
var doubleLength: Double {
return self.length * 2
}
init(len: Double) {
self.length = len
super.init()
}
}
You can temporarily delay the initialization of doubleLength an implicitly unwrapped optional, which will allow to temporarily assign a value to nil and assign it at a later time.
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int! = nil
var length: Int {
return 50
}
init() {
super.init()
doubleLength = length * 2
}
}
Anyway, in this specific case I think it would be nicer to make doubleLength a computed property, since it can be always be computed from the value of length. Your class will be like
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int {
return length * 2
}
var length: Int {
return 50
}
}
Thanks for your full reproduction, which is:
import UIKit
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int
var length: Int {
return 50
}
init() {
doubleLength = length * 2
super.init()
}
}
From this we can see that you're using a getter to return your property. I think this is what's causing the problem. For example, if you just do this:
import UIKit
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int
// Simple variable, no code.
var length = 50
init() {
doubleLength = length * 2
super.init()
}
}
...then that works fine.
I believe this is because the Swift compiler is trying to prevent you from doing anything that might mean you use the base class's methods, properties or variables before it's been initialised. I know you're technically not, in your example, but consider how hard it is to trace back and see what's being done from your initialiser. For example, if you were to do:
var length: Int {
// Where "width" is a made-up property of UICollectionViewLayout
return width * 3
}
...then your code would be run from your initialiser and use a property of UICollectionViewLayout before its own init had been called, therefore making it possibly invalid.
So my best guess is that this is the Swift compiler making a blanket ban on calling out to any code outside the subclass initialiser before the super is initialised.
You get exactly the same error if you do this, for example:
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
func foo() {
// Do nothing
}
init() {
foo() // error: 'self' used before super.init call
super.init()
}
}
The place I remember this being explained is the "Intermediate Swift" video from WWDC 2014, from slide 191, about 20 minutes in, but I'm guessing it's somewhere in the book, too...
A property that depends on another is bad practice. Just like when you design a database, you avoid calculated fields, when you design classes, you also avoid calculated fields. Instead of having a doubleLength property, you should instead have a getDoubleLength method that returns the length * 2.