I am trying to change the default associated type to String. but getting this error
explicitly specify the generic arguments to fix this issue.
Below code works fine for type Int but not for String. Am i missing something?
//override/Change the associated Type of Protocol
protocol Familiable{
associatedtype FamilyType = Int
func getName()->[FamilyType]
}
class NumberFamily:Familiable{
func getName() -> [Int] {
return [1,2,3,4,5]
}
}
let numRef = NumberFamily()
print(numRef.getName())
type(of: numRef)
struct NormalFamily<T:ExpressibleByStringLiteral>: Familiable{
func getName() -> [T] {
return ["name1","name2"]
}
}
let normalRef = NormalFamily()
normalRef.getName()
Related
In the code below, when I try to access genericVar.someFunc() I get the error
"Value of type 'MyProtocol?' has no member 'someFunc'".
Being a generic variable, when I initialize the MyOtherStruct object, I will have to pass a concrete implementation of a MyProtocol conforming object, so why would I be getting this error?
public protocol MyProtocol {
associatedtype T
func someFunc() -> T
}
public struct myStruct: MyProtocol {
public typealias T = Int16
public func someFunc() -> Int16 {
let myVar: Int16 = 7
return myVar
}
}
public struct myOtherStruct<MyProtocol> {
var genericVar: MyProtocol?
public init(localVal: MyProtocol?) {
self.genericVar = localVal
if genericVar != nil {
var my = genericVar.someFunc()
}
}
}
Your generic type declaration is wrong. MyProtocol in the brackets is the name of the generic type parameter rather than the actual protocol. You need to declare another name for the generic type parameter and constrain it to MyProtocol like this: struct MyOtherStruct<T:MyProtocol>. Here T will be the generic type parameter of the struct and the :MyProtocol syntax enforces that T conform to myProtocol.
public struct MyOtherStruct<T:MyProtocol> {
var genericVar: T?
public init(localVal: T?) {
self.genericVar = localVal
if let genericVar = genericVar {
let my = genericVar.someFunc()
}
}
}
Some other things to consider: you should conform to the Swift naming convention, which is UpperCamelCase for types and when you want to access a property/method on an Optional value, instead of doing a nil comparison like if genericVar != nil you should use optional binding using if let.
I am trying to create a Builder for my ComplexObject:
import Foundation
class ComplexObject {
// lots of stuff
init<ObjectType, T>(_ closure: ((ObjectType) -> T)) {
// lots of init/setup code
}
// other initializers with generics, constructed
// by other Builders than ConcreteBuilder<O> below
}
protocol BuilderType {
associatedtype ObjectType
func title(_: String) -> Self
func build<T>(_ closure: ((ObjectType) -> T)) -> ComplexObject
}
struct Injected<O> {
//...
}
extension ComplexObject {
static func newBuilder<Builder: BuilderType, O>(someDependency: Injected<O>) -> Builder where Builder.ObjectType == O {
// vvvv
return ConcreteBuilder(someDependency: someDependency)
// ^^^^
// Cannot convert return expression of type 'ComplexObject.ConcreteBuilder<O>' to return type 'Builder'
}
struct ConcreteBuilder<O>: BuilderType {
private let dependency: Injected<O>
private var title: String
init(someDependency: Injected<O>) {
self.dependency = someDependency
}
func title(_ title: String) -> ConcreteBuilder<O> {
var builder = self
builder.title = title
return builder
}
func build<T>(_ closure: ((O) -> T)) -> ComplexObject {
return ComplexObject(closure)
}
}
}
but swiftc complains about the return ConcreteBuilder(...) line
Cannot convert return expression of type 'ComplexObject.ConcreteBuilder<O>' to return type 'Builder'
I also tried
static func newBuilder<Builder: BuilderType>(someDependency: Injected<Builder.ObjectType>) -> Builder {
return ConcreteBuilder(someDependency: someDependency)
}
with the same result. I see that I could just expose ConcreteBuilder, but I hoped to be able to hide that implementation detail. What am I missing here?
I'm not sure how to solve this issue, but the root of the problem is that newBuilder(someDependancy:) has a generic type signature, but it's really not generic.
Its return type asserts that function can return an object of any type T: BuilderType where Builder.ObjectType == O, but that's clearly not the case. Asking this function to return any type besides a ConcreteBuilder isn't supported. At best, you could use a force cast, but if someone writes let myBuilder: MyBuilder = ComplexObject.newBuilder(someDependancy: dec), the code would crash (even if MyBuilder satisfies your generic constraints) because you're trying to force cast ConcreteBuilder to MyBuilder.
As far as a solution... I don't have one. Fundamentally you just want to return BuilderType, but I don't think that's possible because it has an associated type.
Will this do ?
return ConcreteBuilder(someDependency: someDependency) as! Builder
Here's something I'm playing with. The problem is that I have a container class that has a generic argument which defines the type returned from a closure. I want to add a function that is only available if they generic type is optional and have that function return a instance containing a nil.
Here's the code I'm currently playing with (which won't compile):
open class Result<T>: Resolvable {
private let valueFactory: () -> T
fileprivate init(valueFactory: #escaping () -> T) {
self.valueFactory = valueFactory
}
func resolve() -> T {
return valueFactory()
}
}
public protocol OptionalType {}
extension Optional: OptionalType {}
public extension Result where T: OptionalType {
public static var `nil`: Result<T> {
return Result<T> { nil } // error: expression type 'Result<T>' is ambiguous without more context
}
}
Which I'd like to use like this:
let x: Result<Int?> = .nil
XCTAssertNil(x.resolve())
Any idea how to make this work?
I don't think you can achieve this with a static property, however you can achieve it with a static function:
extension Result {
static func `nil`<U>() -> Result where T == U? {
return .init { nil }
}
}
let x: Result<Int?> = .nil()
Functions are way more powerful than properties when it comes to generics.
Update After some consideration, you can have the static property, you only need to add an associated type to OptionalType, so that you'd know what kind of optional to have for the generic argument:
protocol OptionalType {
associatedtype Wrapped
}
extension Optional: OptionalType { }
extension Result where T: OptionalType {
static var `nil`: Result<T.Wrapped?> {
return Result<T.Wrapped?> { nil }
}
}
let x: Result<Int?> = .nil
One small downside is that theoretically it enables any kind of type to add conformance to OptionalType.
Hi I'm trying to create a function which accepts a generic type that conforms to a specific protocol, and this protocol has a static builder that return a new instance of the same class (using associated type), after that he returns the new object that was created.
The generic function will return a list of the generic type.
In my efforts to make it compile, I found a solution, but I feel like I cheated, please see the following code:
import UIKit
protocol SomeRougeProtocol {
associatedtype U
static func convert(id: String) -> U
}
class FirstRougeClass: SomeRougeProtocol {
typealias U = FirstRougeClass
let value: String
init(value: String = "") {
self.value = value
}
static func convert(id: String) -> FirstRougeClass {
return FirstRougeClass(value: id)
}
}
class SecondRougeClass: SomeRougeProtocol {
typealias U = SecondRougeClass
let value: String
init(value: String = "") {
self.value = "special \(value)"
}
static func convert(id: String) -> SecondRougeClass {
return SecondRougeClass()
}
}
/// Takes type and generate an array from it.
func superConvert<T: SomeRougeProtocol>(class: T) -> [T.U] {
return [T.convert(id: "1"), T.convert(id: "2"), T.convert(id: "3")]
}
// *** This is the cheasty part, I have to create a disposable object to pass as input, it won't compile otherwise.
let disposableObject = FirstRougeClass()
let a: [FirstRougeClass] = superConvert(class: disposableObject)
a[0].value // Generates "1" in the playground, success!
My question is, if there is a better way to achieve what I done? without using a disposable object would be a big plus haha
Thanks!
I have created 2 protocols with associated types. A type conforming to Reader should be able to produce an instance of a type conforming to Value.
The layer of complexity comes from a type conforming to Manager should be able to produce a concrete Reader instance which produces a specific type of Value (either Value1 or Value2).
With my concrete implementation of Manager1 I'd like it to always produce Reader1 which in turn produces instances of Value1.
Could someone explain why
"Reader1 is not convertible to ManagedReaderType?"
When the erroneous line is changed to (for now) return nil it all compiles just fine but now I can't instantiate either Reader1 or Reader2.
The following can be pasted into a Playground to see the error:
import Foundation
protocol Value {
var value: Int { get }
}
protocol Reader {
typealias ReaderValueType: Value
func value() -> ReaderValueType
}
protocol Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType: Value
func read<ManagerReaderType: Reader where ManagerReaderType.ReaderValueType == ManagerValueType>() -> ManagerReaderType?
}
struct Value1: Value {
let value: Int = 1
}
struct Value2: Value {
let value: Int = 2
}
struct Reader1: Reader {
func value() -> Value1 {
return Value1()
}
}
struct Reader2: Reader {
func value() -> Value2 {
return Value2()
}
}
class Manager1: Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType = Value1
let v = ManagerValueType()
func read<ManagerReaderType: Reader where ManagerReaderType.ReaderValueType == ManagerValueType>() -> ManagerReaderType? {
return Reader1()// Error: "Reader1 is not convertible to ManagedReaderType?" Try swapping to return nil which does compile.
}
}
let manager = Manager1()
let v = manager.v.value
let a: Reader1? = manager.read()
a.dynamicType
The error occurs because ManagerReaderType in the read function is only a generic placeholder for any type which conforms to Reader and its ReaderValueType is equal to the one of ManagerReaderType. So the actual type of ManagerReaderType is not determined by the function itself, instead the type of the variable which gets assigned declares the type:
let manager = Manager1()
let reader1: Reader1? = manager.read() // ManagerReaderType is of type Reader1
let reader2: Reader2? = manager.read() // ManagerReaderType is of type Reader2
if you return nil it can be converted to any optional type so it always works.
As an alternative you can return a specific type of type Reader:
protocol Manager {
// this is similar to the Generator of a SequenceType which has the Element type
// but it constraints the ManagerReaderType to one specific Reader
typealias ManagerReaderType: Reader
func read() -> ManagerReaderType?
}
class Manager1: Manager {
func read() -> Reader1? {
return Reader1()
}
}
This is the best approach with protocols due to the lack of "true" generics (the following isn't supported (yet)):
// this would perfectly match your requirements
protocol Reader<T: Value> {
fun value() -> T
}
protocol Manager<T: Value> {
func read() -> Reader<T>?
}
class Manager1: Manager<Value1> {
func read() -> Reader<Value1>? {
return Reader1()
}
}
So the best workaround would be to make Reader a generic class and Reader1 and Reader2 subclass a specific generic type of it:
class Reader<T: Value> {
func value() -> T {
// or provide a dummy value
fatalError("implement me")
}
}
// a small change in the function signature
protocol Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType: Value
func read() -> Reader<ManagerValueType>?
}
class Reader1: Reader<Value1> {
override func value() -> Value1 {
return Value1()
}
}
class Reader2: Reader<Value2> {
override func value() -> Value2 {
return Value2()
}
}
class Manager1: Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType = Value1
func read() -> Reader<ManagerValueType>? {
return Reader1()
}
}
let manager = Manager1()
// you have to cast it, otherwise it is of type Reader<Value1>
let a: Reader1? = manager.read() as! Reader1?
This implementation should solve you problem, but the Readers are now reference types and a copy function should be considered.