I have an array of objects whose type is a struct with mutating functions. So I got this code:
for (index, object) in objects.enumerated() {
otherArray[index] = object.someMutatingFunction(...)
}
This leads me to this error Cannot use mutating member on immutable value of type 'Blabla' which I can fix by adding var:
for var (index, object) in objects.enumerated() {
otherArray[index] = object.someMutatingFunction(...)
}
But then I get another warning Variable 'index' was never mutated; consider changing to 'let' constant which I don't know how to fix elegantly. The only idea is too add a new var variable. Is there anything else I can do to prevent this warning?
Prefix the object variable with the var keyword:
struct S {
mutating func f() { }
}
let array = [S(), S()]
for (index, var object) in array.enumerated() {
object.f()
}
Note as Hamish points out in the comment to this answer that the elements of the array will not be modified. Only the local copy of object inside the scope of the for loop can be modified.
If you want to modify array you have to declare it var outside the scope of the for loop, then assign to array indices.
Related
I have a lazy property in a struct and every time I access it, it mutates the struct.
var numbers = [1,2,3]
struct MyStruct {
lazy var items = numbers
}
class MyClass {
var myStructPropery: MyStruct = MyStruct() {
didSet {
print(myStructPropery)
}
}
}
var myClass = MyClass()
myClass.myStructPropery.items
myClass.myStructPropery.items
myClass.myStructPropery.items
Result:
Print (didSet) will be called every time.
The ideal behaviour should be first time mutation only (since that's how lazy variables behave). Is this a bug in Swift or am I doing something wrong?
What you are seeing is is that the observed property items has notified its observer that it has been mutated because it was accessed, and a lazy variable is by definition mutating since it will be set at a later time. Therefore didSet gets called to handle this.
The lazy variable is actually only set once even though it signals that it has mutated and the property myStructPropery is only mutated once when the variable is first set but is the same instance after that.
Here is how we can verify this, first change the lazy var declaration so it's more like how we usually declare such a variable
lazy var items: [Int] = { numbers }()
and then add a print statement
lazy var items: [Int] = {
print("inside lazy")
return numbers
}()
If we now run the test code
var myClass = MyClass()
myClass.myStructProperty.items
myClass.myStructProperty.items
myClass.myStructProperty.items
we see that "inside lazy" only prints once. To verify that the property myStructProperty isn't changed we can make the struct conform to Equatable and perform a simple check inside didSet
didSet {
if oldValue != myStructProperty {
print(myStructProperty)
}
}
Now running the test we see that the print inside didSet is never executed so myStructProperty is never changed.
I have no idea if this behaviour is a bug but personally it feels like it might be complicate for the property observer to stop observing a lazy property once it was accessed or for a lazy var to not be defined as mutating once it is set.
I started debugging this with following set up -
var numbers = [1,2,3]
struct MyStruct {
lazy var items = numbers
}
class MyClass {
var myStructPropery: MyStruct = MyStruct() {
didSet {
// Changed this to make sure we are not invoking getter here
print("myStructPropery setter called")
}
}
}
let myClass = MyClass()
myClass.myStructPropery.items
myClass.myStructPropery.items
myClass.myStructPropery.items
I can reproduce the problem on Xcode 12.5 using Swift 5.4.
Attempt 1 : Turn var numbers into let numbers - Does NOT work.
let numbers = [1,2,3]
Attempt 2 : Assign the value inline without using an extra variable - Does NOT work.
struct MyStruct {
lazy var items = [1,2,3]
}
Attempt 3 : Assign the value inline using the full blown getter syntax - Does NOT work.
struct MyStruct {
lazy var items: [Int] = {
return [1,2,3]
}()
}
At this point, we are out of options to try. Even though we can clearly see that return [1,2,3] in the last attempt is executed exactly once, the MyClass.myStructPropery.modify is called repeatedly on access to items.
Maybe Swift Forums is a better place to discuss this.
I feel like something is broken with the value semantics here. Consider:
struct A {
var b = 0
mutating func changeB() {
b = 6
}
}
struct B {
var arr = [A]()
func changeArr() {
/* as expected this won't compile
unlss changeArr() is mutating:
arr.append(A())
*/
// but this compiles! despite that changeB is mutating!
for var a in arr {
a.changeB()
}
}
}
Why can this example mutate the struct contents without marking the function as mutating? In true value semantics, any time you change any part of the value, the whole value should be considered changed, and this is usually the behavior in Swift, but in this example it is not. Further, adding a didSet observer to var arr reveals that changeArr is not considered mutation of the value.
for var a in arr {
a.changeB()
}
This is copying an element from arr out into a and leaving arr unchanged.
If you directly access the elements inside arr via their indexes, then it will mutate and require the mutating keyword.
The reason changeArr is not mutating is because it isn't really doing anything since it is working on local copies of the A objects. If you really want the method to do something meaningful it needs to be changed to
mutating func changeArrForReal() {
for index in arr.indices {
arr[index].changeB()
}
}
I am able to write mutating functions in structure but not in class.
struct Stack {
public private(set) var items = [Int]() // Empty items array
mutating func push(_ item: Int) {
items.append(item)
}
mutating func pop() -> Int? {
if !items.isEmpty {
return items.removeLast()
}
return nil
}
}
In swift, classes are reference type whereas structures and enumerations are value types. The properties of value types cannot be modified within its instance methods by default. In order to modify the properties of a value type, you have to use the mutating keyword in the instance method. With this keyword, your method can then have the ability to mutate the values of the properties and write it back to the original structure when the method implementation ends.
If you change the struct to a class, just delete the keyword mutating wherever it appears.
That's because classes are reference types, and structures are value types.
struct TestValue {
var a : Int = 42
mutating func change() { a = 1975 }
}
let val = TestValue()
val.a = 1710 // Forbidden because `val` is a `let` of a value type, so you can't mutate it
val.change() // Also forbidden for the same reason
class TestRef {
var a : Int = 42
func change() { a = 1975 }
}
let ref = TestRef()
ref.a = 1710 // Allowed because `ref` is a reference type, even if it's a `let`
ref.change() // Also allowed for the same reason
So on classes, you don't need to specify if a function is mutating or not, because, even when defined with let variables, you can modify instance...
That's why the mutating key word has no meaning on classes.
I'm trying to get a reference to an Array and make modifications to it. Because Arrays in Swift are value types, instead of reference types, if I assign my array to a variable first, I am getting a copy of the array instead of the actual array:
var odds = ["1", "3", "5"]
var evens = ["2", "4", "6"]
var source = odds
var destination = evens
var one = odds.first!
source.removeFirst() // only removes the first element of the `source` array, not the `odds` array
destination.append(one)
When we look at the odds and evens arrays, they are unaltered because we changed the source and destination arrays.
I know that I can use the inout parameter attribute on a function to pass them by reference, instead of by value:
func move(inout source: [String], inout destination: [String], value:String) {
source.removeAtIndex(source.indexOf(value)!)
destination.append(value)
}
move(&odds, destination: &evens, value:one)
Is there a way to assign these arrays to a variable by reference, instead of by value?
Array is a struct, which means it's a value type in Swift. Because of this, arrays always behave according to value and not reference semantics. The problem here is that you're attempting to use mutable, reference based logic to operate on values types.
You don't want to rely on mutations occurring inside the function to propagate back to the caller. As you've found, this is only possible with inout parameters. What you should do instead is return the mutated array from the function back to the caller. The point of value oriented programming is that it shouldn't matter which array you have, but rather that any two equivalent arrays or values types are interchangeable.
It's slightly easier to imagine with another value type. Take an Int for example, and this function that does some math.
func addFive(int: Int) -> Int {
return int + 5
}
Now consider a similar function, but written in the reference oriented style that you're attempting to use:
func addFive(inout int: Int) {
int = int + 5
}
You can see it's simply not natural to operate on value types this way. Instead just return the updated value (the modified arrays) from your function and carry on from there.
Here is your function refactored with value semantics.
func move(source: [String], destination: [String], value:String) -> ([String], [String]) {
var mutableSource = source
var mutableDestination = destination
mutableSource.removeAtIndex(source.indexOf(value)!)
mutableDestination.append(value)
return (mutableSource, mutableDestination)
}
let (updatedSource, updatedDestination) = move(odds, destination: evens, value:one)
You cannot assign an array to a variable by reference in Swift.
"In Swift, Array, String, and Dictionary are all value types..."
Source: https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=10
If you need arrays that can be manipulated by reference you can create a class that encapsulates an array and use it for your variables.
here's an example:
class ArrayRef<Element>:CustomStringConvertible
{
var array:[Element]=[]
init() {}
init(Type:Element.Type) {}
init(fromArray:[Element]) { array = fromArray }
init(_ values:Element ...) { array = values }
var count:Int { return array.count }
// allow use of subscripts to manipulate elements
subscript (index:Int) -> Element
{
get { return array[index] }
set { array[index] = newValue }
}
// allow short syntax to access array content
// example: myArrayRef[].map({ $0 + "*" })
subscript () -> [Element]
{
get { return array }
set { array = newValue }
}
// allow printing the array example: print(myArrayRef)
var description:String { return "\(array)" }
// delegate append method to internal array
func append(newElement: Element)
{ array.append(newElement) }
// add more delegation to array methods as needed ...
}
// being an object, the ArrayRef class is always passed as a reference
func modifyArray(X:ArrayRef<String>)
{
X[2] = "Modified"
}
var a = ArrayRef("A","B","C")
modifyArray(a)
print(a) // --> a is now ["A", "B", "Modified"]
// various means of declaration ...
var b = ArrayRef<String>()
b[] = ["1","2","3"]
var c = ArrayRef(fromArray:b[])
// use .array to modify array content (or implement delegation in the class)
c.array += a[] + ["X","Y","Z"]
Note that you could also define your arrays as NSMutableArrays which are Obj-C classes and are passed by reference. It does a similar thing and does present differences with a regular array for the methods that are available.
I recommend this the following only for didactic purpose only, I advise against using it in production code.
You can circulate a "reference" to something via an UnsafePointer instance.
class Ref<T> {
private var ptr: UnsafePointer<T>!
var value: T { return ptr.pointee }
init(_ value: inout T) {
withUnsafePointer(to: &value) { ptr = $0 }
}
}
var a = ["1"]
var ref = Ref(&a)
print(a, ref.value) // ["1"] ["1"]
a.append("2")
print(a, ref.value) // ["1", "2"] ["1", "2"]
ref.value.removeFirst()
print(a, ref.value) // ["2"] ["2"]
Thus, you can simulate a reference to a variable via the above class, which stores a pointer to the given variable reference.
Please note that this is a simple use case, and will behave as expected only if if the variable doesn't get destroyed before the pointer, as in that case the memory initially occupied by the variable will be replaced by something else, and the unsafe pointer will no longer be valid. Take for example the next code:
var ref: Ref<[String]>!
// adding an inner scope to simulate `a` being destroyed
do {
var a: [String] = ["a"]
ref = Ref(&a)
print(a, ref.value)
a = ["b"]
print(a, ref.value)
}
// `a` was destroyed, however it's place on the stack was taken by `b`
var b: [String:Int] = ["a": 1]
// however `b` is not an array, thus the next line will crash
print(ref.value)
Let's take these two simple classes to show my problem:
class Object{
var name:String?
// keep it simple... and useless
}
class TestClass {
var objects:AnyObject[]?
func initializeObjects (){
objects?.insert(Object(), atIndex:0) // Error
objects?.insert(Object(), atIndex:1) // Error
objects?.insert(Object(), atIndex:2) // Error
}
}
With this implementation I get 3 errors Could not find member 'insert' where I try to add object into the objects array.
Now, if I remove the optional from objects definition and the optional chain in initializeObjects it works with no problem (here the working code)
class Object{
var name:String?
}
class TestClass {
var objects:AnyObject[] = AnyObject[]() // REMOVE optional and initialize an empty array
func initializeObjects (){
objects.insert(Object(), atIndex:0) // Remove Opt chaining
objects.insert(Object(), atIndex:1) // Remove Opt chaining
objects.insert(Object(), atIndex:2) // Remove Opt chaining
}
}
I can't understand what is wrong in the first implementation.
I thought it checks with objects? if objects is not nil and at this point it adds an element using insert:atIndex:. But I'm probably wrong -.-
Arrays in Swift are structs and structs are value types.
Optionals in Swift are actually enums (Optional<T> or ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T>).
When you are unwrapping an optional (implicitly or explicitly) of a value type, what you get is actually a constant copy of the struct. And you can't call mutating methods on a constant struct.
Executing objects?.insert(Object(), atIndex:0) basically means this:
if let tmp = objects {
tmp.insert(Object(), atIndex:0)
}
As a workaround, you need to assign the unwrapped value to a variable and then assign the variable back to your optional property. That's how value types work.
This is reproducible for any struct, not only Arrays:
struct S {
var value: Int = 0
}
var varS: S = S()
varS.value = 10 //can be called
let constS: S = S()
constS.value = 10 //cannot be called - constant!
var optionalS: S? = S()
optionalS?.value = 10 //cannot be called, unwrapping makes a constant copy!
//workaround
if optionalS {
var tmpS = optionalS!
tmpS.value = 10
optionalS = tmpS
}
Some relevant discussion here: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/233111?tstart=60