Overriding / operator for Optionals using generics results in endless loop - swift

lets take a look at the following code snippet:
func / <T>(lhs: T?,rhs: T?) throws -> T? {
switch (lhs,rhs) {
case let (l?,r?):
return try l/r
default:
return nil
}
}
let x : Double? = 2
let y : Double? = 2
let z = try! x/y
I created a generic function that expects two optional parameters. If I run this code it leads to an endless loop because try l/r uses func / <T>(lhs: T?,rhs: T?) to divide the values. Can anyone explain why dividing two none optional double values results in a function call to the method I wrote and not the default / operator definition for Double?
If I extend Double by an extension that requires a static / operator for that class everything works like a charm:
protocol Dividable {
static func /(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Self
}
extension Double: Dividable {}
func / <T:Dividable>(lhs: T?,rhs: T?) throws -> T? {
switch (lhs,rhs) {
case let (l?,r?):
return l/r
default:
return nil
}
}
let x : Double? = 2
let y : Double? = 2
let z = try! x/y

The binary arithmetic for e.g. Double is not implemented using concrete Double types, but rather as default generic implementations for types conforming to FloatingPoint:
swift/stdlib/public/core/FloatingPoint.swift.gyb
Within the block of your custom / function, the compiler does not know that the typeholder T conforms to FloatingPoint, and the overload resolution of l/r will resolve to the method itself (since the FloatingPoint implementions, while being more specific, are not accessible to the more general non-constrained type T in your custom implementation).
You could workaround this by adding FloatingPoint as a type constraint also to your own custom method:
func /<T: FloatingPoint>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) throws -> T? {
switch (lhs, rhs) {
case let (l?, r?):
return try l/r
default:
return nil
}
}
Likewise, the binary arithmetic for integer types are implemented as default generic implementations constrained to types conforming to the internal protocol _IntegerArithmetic, to which the public protocol IntegerArithmetic conforms.
swift/stdlib/public/core/IntegerArithmetic.swift.gyb
You can use the latter public protocol to implement an overload of your custom operator function for integer types.
func /<T: IntegerArithmetic>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) throws -> T? {
switch (lhs, rhs) {
case let (l?, r?):
return try l/r
default:
return nil
}
}
Finally, you might want to consider why you'd want this function to throw. N also ote that there are ways to simplify you implementations when dealing with exactly two optional values that you want to operate on only in case both differ from nil. E.g.:
func /<T: FloatingPoint>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> T? {
return lhs.flatMap { l in rhs.map{ l / $0 } }
}
func /<T: IntegerArithmetic>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> T? {
return lhs.flatMap { l in rhs.map{ l / $0 } }
}
Of, if you prefer semantics over brevity, wrap your switch statement in a single if statement
func /<T: FloatingPoint>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> T? {
if case let (l?, r?) = (lhs, rhs) {
return l/r
}
return nil
}
func /<T: IntegerArithmetic>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> T? {
if case let (l?, r?) = (lhs, rhs) {
return l/r
}
return nil
}

Your function signature doesn't let the compiler know anything about the type of lhs and rhs, other than that they're the same type. For example you could call your method like this:
let str1 = "Left string"
let str2 = "Right string"
let result = try? str1 / str2
This will result in an infinite loop because the only method that the compiler knows called / that takes in 2 parameters of the same type (in this case String) is the one that you've declared; return try l/r will call your func / <T>(lhs: T?,rhs: T?) throws -> T? method over and over again.
As you mentioned in your question, you will need a protocol that your parameters must conform to. Unfortunately there is no existing Number or Dividable protocol that would fit your needs, so you'll have to make your own.
Note that division will crash when the denominator is 0 and will not throw an error, so you should be able to remove the throws keyword from your function so that it is:
func / <T:Dividable>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> T?
Edit to clarify further
If you think about what the compiler knows at that point I think it makes more sense. Once inside the function all the compiler knows is that lhs and rhs are of type T and optional. It doesn't know what T is, or any of its properties or functions, but only that they're both of type T. Once you unwrap the values you still only know that both are of type T and non-optional. Even though you know that T (in this instance) is a Double, it could be a String (as per my example above). This would require the compiler to iterate over every possible class and struct to find something that supports your method signature (in this case func / (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Double), which it simply can't do (in a reasonable time), and would lead to unpredictable code. Imagine if you added this global method and then every time / was used on something existing (such as Float(10) / Float(5)) your method was called, that would get pretty messy and confusing pretty quickly.

Related

Using Swift Generics to Call a Non-Generic Library

I'm trying to write a generic Swift wrapper for some of the vector operations in the Accelerate vDSP framework and I'm running into a problem calling the functions in a generic way.
My vector struct looks like:
public struct Vector<T> {
let array: [T]
public static func add(_ a: [T], _ b: [T]) -> [T] {
vDSP.add(a, b)
}
public static func + (_ lhs: Self , _ rhs: Self) -> Self {
Self.add(lhs.array, rhs.array)
}
}
The problem is the add function is overloaded to either take Floats and return Floats or take Doubles and return Doubles. Since the type isn't known at compile time I get an error No exact matches in call to static method 'add'
The only way I've found to get around this is to explicitly check the type before the call and cast:
public static func add(_ a: [T], _ b: [T]) -> [T] {
if T.self is Float.Type {
return vDSP.add(a as! [Float], b as! [Float]) as! [T]
} else {
return vDSP.add(a as! [Double], b as! [Double]) as! [T]
}
}
or to use constrained methods
public static func add(_ a: T, _ b: [T]) -> [T] where T == Float { vDSP.add(a, b) }
public static func add(_ a: T, _ b: [T]) -> [T] where T == Double { vDSP.add(a, b) }
Both of these lead to uncomfortable code duplication, and what's more if I had more than two types (for example if supported is added for the upcoming Float16 type) I'd need to keep adding more and more cases. The latter approach seems especially bad since the method bodies are identical.
I'd like to be able to do something like vDSP.add<T>(a, b) but it seems Swift doesn't support this. Is there some other way to acheive this and avoid the code duplication?

Custom infix operators and optionals

class TreeNode: Equatable {
static func ==(lhs: TreeNode, rhs: TreeNode) -> Bool {
lhs.val == rhs.val && lhs.left == rhs.right && lhs.right == rhs.left
}
var val: Int = 0
var left, right: TreeNode?
}
This code compiles and even works. But why? left and right variables are optional, isn't I supposed to unwrap it first in the body of static func ==?
Actually it isn't quite an equation. As you can see it's rather some sort of symmetrical equation. So I would like to define custom operator with different name for this purpose:
infix operator =|=: ComparisonPrecedence
class TreeNode {
static func =|=(lhs: TreeNode, rhs: TreeNode) -> Bool {
lhs.val == rhs.val && lhs.left =|= rhs.right && lhs.right =|= rhs.left
}
var val: Int = 0
var left, right: TreeNode?
}
And now it doesn't compile due to the reason I've mentioned earlier. It wants me to unwrap the optionals first.
Actually it would be great if it "just works" like in the case of "=="))) Because not having to unwrap the optionals explicitly would be convenient here.
So I want to understand why it behaves differently in these two situations.
This code compiles and even works. But why?
It is simply because there is an == operator declared for all Optional<Wrapped> where Wrapped is Equatable, like this:
static func == (lhs: Wrapped?, rhs: Wrapped?) -> Bool
TreeNode is Equatable in your first code snippet, so it works.
In your second code snippet, you haven't declared a =|= operator that operates on two TreeNode?. You can do that by either putting this in global scope...
func =|= (lhs: TreeNode?, rhs: TreeNode?) -> Bool {
switch (lhs, rhs) {
case (nil, nil): // both nil
return true
case (let x?, let y?): // both non-nil
return x =|= y // compare two non-optional tree nodes
default:
return false
}
}
or writing an Optional extension:
extension Optional where Wrapped == TreeNode {
static func =|= (lhs: Wrapped?, rhs: Wrapped?) -> Bool {
switch (lhs, rhs) {
case (nil, nil): // both nil
return true
case (let x?, let y?): // both non-nil
return x =|= y // compare two non-optional tree nodes
default:
return false
}
}
}
But as Leo Dabus said, I'd just conform to Equatable and not create your own operator. Conforming to existing protocols allows you to use TreeNode with many APIs in the standard library, such as Array.contains(_:).

Swift - Reference default comparison function as a function parameter

I'm trying to implement a convenience Collection.sorted(by: KeyPath) function.
So far, it works if do
func sorted<T: Comparable>(by keyPath: KeyPath<Element, T>) -> [Element] {
return sorted { lhs, rhs
return lhs[keyPath: keyPath] < rhs[keyPath: keyPath]
}
}
But what if I want to allow the caller to specify the actual sorting logic ? I added a callback to perform the comparison, like such (taking inspiration from the orginal sorted(_:) function signature).
func sorted<T: Comparable>(by keyPath: KeyPath<Element, T>, _ compare: (T, T) throws -> Bool) rethrows -> [Element] {
return try sorted { lhs, rhs in
return try compare(lhs[keyPath: keyPath], rhs[keyPath: keyPath])
}
}
Now, this is all works, but it means the callsite always has to specify which sorting operation to perform.
let sorted = myArray.sorted(by: \.name, <)
I'd like it to default to <, but how can I reference the < operator by default, in my function's signature ?
It is actually possible to reference the un-applied < function by wrapping it in parentheses (<) when using it as a default parameter.
func sorted<T: Comparable>(
by keyPath: KeyPath<Element, T>,
_ compare: (T, T) throws -> Bool = (<)
) rethrows -> [Element] {
return try sorted { lhs, rhs in
return try compare(lhs[keyPath: keyPath], rhs[keyPath: keyPath])
}
}
However, there is currently an issue with the compiler when doing this.
Even though < doesn't throw, the compiler will still enforce you to use try at the call site.
A bug report for this was opened quite some time ago, and is still unresolved. If you run into this, please upvote it: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-1534
Additionally, as pointed out in the comments, the sorted(by:) function is actually 2 different functions.
One requires Comparable and uses < internally, while the other lets you specify the sorting logic directly and thus, does not require Comparable conformance.
Therefore, this convenience sorting by keyPath would still require 2 functions.

Swift switch patterns matching with .some/.none

var stream: DataStream? = nil
switch stream {
case nil:
print("No data stream is configured.")
case let x?:
print("The data stream has \(x.availableBytes) bytes available.")
}
Refrenced by switch optional code, the above content will call public func ~= <T>(lhs: _OptionalNilComparisonType, rhs: T?) -> Bool function. And there is another switch pattern in this function:
public func ~= <T>(lhs: _OptionalNilComparisonType, rhs: T?) -> Bool {
switch rhs {
case .some(_):
return false
case .none:
return true
}
}
My question is whitch function will be called by this pattern? There are two ~= overload functions in Range.swift & Policy.swift, does one of them will be called?
Your question is not totally clear to be but ~= is the pattern match operator.
func ~=(pattern: ???, value: ???) -> Bool
By overriding it you are able to create your own pattern match for your custom types and use it into a switch (basically the switch call this operator).
There is a good article here https://appventure.me/2015/08/20/swift-pattern-matching-in-detail/
What are you seeing in Range and Policy are simply the custom overload of this operator to make it work with Range and Policy types as they did for optionals.

Shorthand for wrapping a swift variable in an optional?

Swift allows us to use the shorthand notation str! to unwrap an optional. But what if we want to do the opposite?
Say I have a variable:
var str = String() // String
Is there any shorthand notation to convert this to an optional (i.e. String? or String!)?
(E.g. I want to do something like var strOptional = ?(str).)
Alternatively, if there is no shorthand for this notation, how can I convert it to an optional without explicitly mentioning its type (e.g. I don't want to mention String).
In other words, I know that I can wrap a variable as an optional with any of these methods:
var strOptional = str as String?
var strOptional: String? = str
var strOptional = String?(str)
... but in each case, I must explicitly write String.
I would rather write something like: var strOptional = str as typeof?(str), if there is no shorthand syntax. (The advantage is that if the variable's type is frequently changed in the code base, it would be one less place to update.)
As far as a real world example of where this would be useful, imagine I want to use an AVCaptureDevice and I use the following code:
let device = AVCaptureDevice.defaultDeviceWithMediaType(AVMediaTypeVideo)
device.lockForConfiguration(nil)
lockForConfiguration() will crash at runtime on a device that has no video camera, and the compiler won't warn me about it. The reason is that defaultDeviceWithMediaType may return nil according to the documentation[1], yet it is defined to return a AVCaptureDevice!.
To fix a faulty API like this, it would be nice to do something like:
let device = ?(AVCaptureDevice.defaultDeviceWithMediaType(AVMediaTypeVideo))
... to get a AVCaptureDevice?, and have the compiler catch any mistakes I might make.
Currently, I must resort to the more verbose:
let device: AVCaptureDevice? = AVCaptureDevice.defaultDeviceWithMediaType(AVMediaTypeVideo)
Another example:
In this case, I want to give a default value to my variable that is a string, but later on, I may want to assign it a nil value.
var myString = "Hi"
// ...
if (someCondition()) {
myString = nil // Syntax error: myString is String
}
Currently I have to resort to var myString: String? = "Hi" but something like var myString = ?("Hi") would be less verbose.
[1] If you open AVCaptureDevice.h, you will see the following documentation about the return value: "The default device with the given media type, or nil if no device with that media type exists."
Optional is just an enum in swift, so you can do: Optional(str)
From the swift interface:
/// A type that can represent either a `Wrapped` value or `nil`, the absence
/// of a value.
public enum Optional<Wrapped> : _Reflectable, NilLiteralConvertible {
case None
case Some(Wrapped)
/// Construct a `nil` instance.
public init()
/// Construct a non-`nil` instance that stores `some`.
public init(_ some: Wrapped)
/// If `self == nil`, returns `nil`. Otherwise, returns `f(self!)`.
#warn_unused_result
public func map<U>(#noescape f: (Wrapped) throws -> U) rethrows -> U?
/// Returns `nil` if `self` is `nil`, `f(self!)` otherwise.
#warn_unused_result
public func flatMap<U>(#noescape f: (Wrapped) throws -> U?) rethrows -> U?
/// Create an instance initialized with `nil`.
public init(nilLiteral: ())
}
To wrap up a variable you could use operator overloading and generic functions. For example:
prefix operator ??? {}
prefix func ??? <T> (x: T) -> T? {
return Optional(x)
}
To relate this to your second example, you would do the following:
var myString = ???"Hi" // Optional("Hi")
if someCondition() {
myString = nil
}
In the lighthearted spirit that, as I understand, the question was posed, you can define a postfix operator that uses one character less than your ideal solution (a pair of parens and a question mark):
postfix operator =? {}
postfix func =? <T> (rhs: T) -> T? { return rhs }
postfix func =? <T> (rhs: T!) -> T? { return rhs ?? nil }
var x = 3=?
x is Int? //--> true
var imp: Int! = 3
var opt = imp=?
opt is Int? //--> true
As to Apple's APIs you mention, since they already return an optional, albeit an implicitly unwrapped optional, you could use the nil coalescing operator ?? to convert it to a plain optional:
let y: Int! = 3 // posing for a rogue API
y is Int? //--> false
let z = y ?? nil
z is Int? //--> true
Perhaps a sligtly more interesting use of a dodgy operator is a higher order operator function that lifts T -> Us into T? -> U?s...
func opt <T, U> (f: T -> U) -> T? -> U? { // we'll implement this as an operator
return { $0.map(f) }
}
postfix operator ->? {}
postfix func ->? <T, U> (f: T -> U) -> T? -> U? {
return { $0.map(f) }
}
Now, let's use it:
let square: Int -> Int = { $0 * $0 }
let i: Int? = 3
square->? (i)
Which is equivalent to:
opt(square)(i)
Which is equivalent to (but potentially a little more versatile than):
i.map(square)
This all makes much more sense when used along with the pipe forward operator:
infix operator |> { associativity left precedence 89 }
func |> <A, B>(a: A, f: A -> B) -> B {
return f(a)
}
Then you can do:
i |> opt(square)
or
i |> square->?
Or we can conflate these into an optional pipe forward, which can take care of implicitly unwrapped optionals too:
infix operator ?> { associativity left precedence 89 }
func ?> <T, U> (lhs: T?, rhs: T -> U) -> U? {
return lhs.map(rhs)
}
let im: Int! = 5
let op: Int? = 5
im ?> square |> debugPrintln //--> Optional(25)
op ?> square |> debugPrintln //--> Optional(25)
Which is equivalent to:
debugPrintln(op.map(square))