Read-Only properties - swift

I need help with "read-only" in swift. I tried various ways, but simply couldn't figure out how to compile it without errors. Here's the question and what i thought of.
Create a read-only computed property named isEquilateral that checks to see whether all three sides of a triangle are the same length and returns true if they are and false if they are not.
var isEquilateral: Int {
}

If you want a "read-only" stored property, use private(set):
private(set) var isEquilateral = false
If it is a property calculated from other properties, then, yes, use computed property:
var isEquilateral: Bool {
return a == b && b == c
}
For the sake of completeness, and probably needless to say, if it is a constant, you’d just use let:
let isEquilateral = true
Or
struct Triangle {
let a: Double
let b: Double
let c: Double
let isEquilateral: Bool
init(a: Double, b: Double, c: Double) {
self.a = a
self.b = b
self.c = c
isEquilateral = (a == b) && (b == c)
}
}

Something like this? (as suggested by #vacawama in the comments)
struct Triangle {
let edgeA: Int
let edgeB: Int
let edgeC: Int
var isEquilateral: Bool {
return (edgeA, edgeB) == (edgeB, edgeC)
}
}
Let's test it
let triangle = Triangle(edgeA: 5, edgeB: 5, edgeC: 5)
triangle.isEquilateral // true
or
let triangle = Triangle(edgeA: 2, edgeB: 2, edgeC: 1)
triangle.isEquilateral // false

A read-only property is a property with getter but no setter. It is always used to return a value.
class ClassA {
var one: Int {
return 1
}
var two: Int {
get { return 2 }
}
private(set) var three:Int = 3
init() {
one = 1//Cannot assign to property: 'one' is a get-only property
two = 2//Cannot assign to property: 'two' is a get-only property
three = 3//allowed to write
print(one)//allowed to read
print(two)//allowed to read
print(three)//allowed to read
}
}
class ClassB {
init() {
var a = ClassA()
a.one = 1//Cannot assign to property: 'one' is a get-only property
a.two = 2//Cannot assign to property: 'two' is a get-only property
a.three = 3//Cannot assign to property: 'three' setter is inaccessible
print(a.one)//allowed to read
print(a.two)//allowed to read
print(a.three)//allowed to read
}
}

Related

Extension optional Array with Optional Element. Is it even possible?

I have a protocol FooProtocol. and a class Bar<Foo:FooProtocol>. Inside a class an Array var mess: [Foo?]? to keep [foo1, foo2, nil, foo3...] or nil
And I try to make extension for this array to count new Foo object. I prefer to have protocols, because Foos could be very different objects delivered from outer world.
protocol FooProtocol {
....
init(from heaven: Int)
}
extension Optional where
Wrapped: Collection,
Wrapped.Element == Optional,
Wrapped.Element.Wrapped: FooProtocol // 'Wrapped' is not a member type of 'Wrapped.Element'
{
var united: Wrapped.Element.Wrapped { // Nope
let i = ...
return Wrapped.Element.Wrapped(from: i) // Nope
}
}
class Bar<Foo:FooProtocol> {
var mess: [Foo?]?
init (with mess: [Foo?]?) {
self.mess = mess
}
var important: Foo {
return mess.united
}
}
Any ideas? I'm blocked.
Edit 1:
After Leo suggestions I changed some parts of my code. But still stucked. This time more code from Playgrounds.
Any object that could be converted into '[Double]'. Could be color (as RGBA), Bezier curve, square, whatever...
public protocol FooProtocol {
var atomized: () -> [Double] {get}
static var count: Int {get}
init(_ array:[Double])
init()
}
public extension Array where Element: FooProtocol {
var average: Element {
var resultAtoms: [Double] = []
let inputAtoms = self.map {$0.atomized()}
for i in 0..<Element.count {
let s = inputAtoms.reduce(into: 0.0, {$0 += $1[i]}) / Double (Element.count)
resultAtoms.append(s)
}
return Element(resultAtoms)
}
}
extension Optional where
Wrapped: Collection,
Wrapped.Element == Optional<FooProtocol>
{
typealias Foo = Wrapped.Element.Wrapped // Doesn't work. How to get class?
var average: Foo { // I cannot use Wrapped.Element, it's Optional
if let thatsList = self {
let withOptionals = Array(thatsList) // OK, its [Optional<FooProtocol>]
let withoutOptionals = thatsList.compactMap({$0}) // OK, its [FooProtocol]
// This is funny, called from class works and makes 'bingo'.
return withoutOptionals.average // Error: Value of protocol type 'FooProtocol' cannot conform to 'FooProtocol'; only struct/enum/class types can conform to protocols
} else {
return Foo() // Hello? init Wrapped? Foo? How to get Foo()?
}
}
}
class Bar<Foo:FooProtocol> {
var mess: [Foo?]?
init (with mess: [Foo?]?) {
self.mess = mess
}
func workOn() {
let z:Foo = mess.average // OK, I can make 'mess.average ?? Foo()' but prefer not do it
}
// Thats OK
func workHard() { // To prove 'Array extension where Element: FooProtocol' works
if let messExist = mess {
let withoutOptionals = messExist.compactMap({$0})
let bingo = withoutOptionals.average //It's OK
}
}
}
class SomeFoo : FooProtocol {
static var count = 3
required init() {
a = 0
b = 0
c = 0
}
required init(_ array: [Double]) {
self.a = Int(array[0])
self.b = Float(array[1])
self.c = array[2]
}
var atomized: () -> [Double] {
return {return [Double(self.a), Double(self.b), self.c]}
}
var a: Int
var b: Float
var c: Double
}
let aFoo = SomeFoo([1, 2, 3])
let bFoo = SomeFoo([7, 9, 1])
let cFoo = SomeFoo([2, 6, 5])
let barData = [nil, aFoo, nil, bFoo, cFoo]
let barWithData = Bar(with: barData)
let barWithoutData = Bar<SomeFoo>(with: nil)
Maybe I should forget about extending array and make some functions inside a class (I'm almost sure I will need those functions somewhere else)
Edit 2
Even if I try to simplify and to make extension for Array I found troubles.
extension Array where
Element == Optional<FooProtocol>
{
func averageNils <Foo: FooProtocol>() -> Foo {
let withOptionals = Array(self) // OK, its [Optional<FooProtocol>]
let withoutOptionals = self.compactMap({$0}) // OK, its [FooProtocol]
return withoutOptionals.average as! Foo // Error: Value of protocol type 'FooProtocol' cannot conform to 'FooProtocol'; only struct/enum/class types can conform to protocols
}
}
From my understanding, it should work as you did, but one never knows what happens in the swift compiler world (and especially it's error messages).
Anyway, you can circumvent digging deeper into Wrapped.Element.Wrapped by specifyig the Wrapped.Element more precisely to be an Optional<FooProtocol>:
protocol FooProtocol {}
class Foo : FooProtocol {}
extension Optional where
Wrapped: Collection, //OK
Wrapped.Element == Optional<FooProtocol> // still good
{
var unfied: Wrapped.Element // Should be 'Foo' if self is '[Foo?]?' {
{
return 1 == 0 ? nil : Foo()
}
}

Use Swift #propertyWrapper for dynamic default value?

I need a Swift property that -- if the value has not yet been set -- defaults to another value.
This can be implemented using backing-store private properties. For instance, for a property num that should default to a global defaultNum, it would work something like this:
var defaultNum = 1
class MyClass {
var num: Int {
get { _num ?? defaultNum }
set { _num = newValue }
}
private var _num: Int?
}
let c = MyClass()
print("initial \(c.num)") // == 1 ✅
// changing the default changes the value returned
defaultNum = 2
print("dynamic \(c.num)") // == 2 ✅
// once the property is set, returns the stored value
c.num = 5
print("base \(c.num)") // == 5 ✅
That works, but for a common pattern in our code, it's a lot of boilerplate for each such property.
Using Swift property wrappers, is it possible to do this more concisely?
What won't work
Note that, because we expect the default to be dynamic, static initializers will not work. For example:
var defaultNum = 1
class MyClass {
var num = defaultNum
}
var c = MyClass()
defaultNum = 2
print(c.num) // this == 1, we want the current value of defaultNum, which == 2
You can do this by creating a property wrapper like this:
#propertyWrapper
public struct Default<T> {
var baseValue: T?
var closure: () -> T
// this allows a nicer syntax for single variables...
public init(_ closure: #autoclosure #escaping () -> T) {
self.closure = closure
}
// ... and if we want to explicitly use a closure, we can.
public init(_ closure: #escaping () -> T) {
self.closure = closure
}
public var wrappedValue: T {
get { baseValue ?? closure() }
set { baseValue = newValue }
}
}
You then use the #Default property wrapper on a property like this:
var defaultNum = 1
class MyClass {
#Default(defaultNum)
var num: Int
}
You'd then see the following in practice:
let c = MyClass()
// if we haven't set the property yet, it uses the closure to return a default value
print("initial \(c.num)") // == 1 ✅
// because we are using a closure, changing the default changes the value returned
defaultNum = 2
print("dynamic \(c.num)") // == 2 ✅
// once the property is set, uses the stored base value
c.num = 5
print("base \(c.num)") // == 5 ✅

Inner didSet protection bizarrely extends to the whole class?

It's well-known that, of course, didSet will not run on the same object again from inside a didSet. (example.)
However. It seems that: the restriction applies not only to that object, but to maybe any object of the same class.
Here are copy-paste test cases for Playground.
class C {
var Test: Bool = false {
didSet {
print("test.")
for c in r {
c.Test = true
}
}
}
var r:[C] = []
}
var a:C = C()
var b:C = C()
var c:C = C()
a.r = [b, c]
a.Test = false
Does not work!
class C {
var Test2: Bool = false {
didSet {
print("test2.")
global.Test2 = true
}
}
}
var global:C = C()
var a:C = C()
a.Test2 = false
Does not work!
Is this a Swift bug?
If not, what is the actual restriction? It won't run ANY didSet (whatsoever) that starts from a didSet?; the same identical class?; the same super class?; or?
Where exactly is this explained in the doco?
WTF. One needs to know ... what is the actual restriction specifically?
This is bug SR-419.
From the comment on the bug:
Ugh. We really need to check that the base of the property access is statically self.
and from my experiments it seems that the didSet observer is not invoked only if you set the same property on any object. If you set any other property (even on the same object), the observer is invoked correctly.
class A {
var name: String
var related: A?
var property1: Int = 0 {
didSet {
print("\(name), setting property 1: \(property1)")
self.property2 = 100 * property1
related?.property1 = 10 * property1
related?.property2 = 100 * property1
}
}
var property2: Int = 0 {
didSet {
print("\(name), setting property 2: \(property2)")
}
}
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
let a = A(name: "Base")
a.related = A(name: "Related")
a.property1 = 2
Output:
Base, setting property 1: 2
Base, setting property 2: 200
Related, setting property 2: 200
when the expected output should be:
Base, setting property 1: 2
Base, setting property 2: 200
Related, setting property 1: 20
Related, setting property 2: 2000
Related, setting property 2: 200
It seems you also need to assign that property directly from the observer. Once you enter another function (or observer), the observers start working again:
var property1: Int = 0 {
didSet {
print("\(name), setting property 1: \(property1)")
onSet()
}
}
...
func onSet() {
self.property2 = 100 * property1
related?.property1 = 10 * property1
related?.property2 = 100 * property1
}
And that is the best workaround.
Another workaround (thanks #Hamish) is to wrap nested assignments into an immediately executed closure:
var property1: Int = 0 {
didSet {
{
self.property2 = 100 * property1
related?.property1 = 10 * property1
related?.property2 = 100 * property1
}()
}
}
Depending on code before the closure, you might have to wrap it into parenthesis or insert a semicolon after the preceding statement.

swift set intersect, union, subtract

Does anyone know how to implement set operations with user defined classes, with its property as operated conditions. For instance:
class myClass {
var figure: Int!
}
let classObj1 = myClass()
classObj1.figure = 1
let classObj2 = myClass()
classObj2.figure = 2
let classObj3 = myClass()
classObj3.figure = 1
let set1: Set = [classObj1]
let set2: Set = [classObj2, classObj3]
Is there any method like: (pseudo code)
set2.substract(set1) {s2, s1 in s2.figure == s1.figure}
...so the expected result is [classObj2]?
Many thanks for any suggestion!
Certainly. Make your MyClass conform to Hashable and Equatable in such a way that == compares the figure values. Example:
class MyClass : Hashable {
var figure: Int
init(f:Int) {figure = f}
var hashValue : Int {return figure}
}
func ==(lhs:MyClass, rhs:MyClass) -> Bool {
return lhs.figure == rhs.figure
}

Change the value that is being set in variable's willSet block

I'm trying to sort the array that is being set before setting it but the argument of willSet is immutable and sort mutates the value. How can I overcome this limit?
var files:[File]! = [File]() {
willSet(newFiles) {
newFiles.sort { (a:File, b:File) -> Bool in
return a.created_at > b.created_at
}
}
}
To put this question out of my own project context, I made this gist:
class Person {
var name:String!
var age:Int!
init(name:String, age:Int) {
self.name = name
self.age = age
}
}
let scott = Person(name: "Scott", age: 28)
let will = Person(name: "Will", age: 27)
let john = Person(name: "John", age: 32)
let noah = Person(name: "Noah", age: 15)
var sample = [scott,will,john,noah]
var people:[Person] = [Person]() {
willSet(newPeople) {
newPeople.sort({ (a:Person, b:Person) -> Bool in
return a.age > b.age
})
}
}
people = sample
people[0]
I get the error stating that newPeople is not mutable and sort is trying to mutate it.
It's not possible to mutate the value inside willSet. If you implement a willSet observer, it is passed the new property value as a constant parameter.
What about modifying it to use didSet?
var people:[Person] = [Person]()
{
didSet
{
people.sort({ (a:Person, b:Person) -> Bool in
return a.age > b.age
})
}
}
willSet is called just before the value is stored.
didSet is called immediately after the new value is stored.
You can read more about property observers here
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Properties.html
You can also write a custom getter and setter like below. But didSet seems more convenient.
var _people = [Person]()
var people: [Person] {
get {
return _people
}
set(newPeople) {
_people = newPeople.sorted({ (a:Person, b:Person) -> Bool in
return a.age > b.age
})
}
}
It is not possible to change value types (including arrays) before they are set inside of willSet. You will need to instead use a computed property and backing storage like so:
var _people = [Person]()
var people: [Person] {
get {
return _people
}
set(newPeople) {
_people = newPeople.sorted { $0.age > $1.age }
}
}
Another solution for people who like abstracting away behavior like this (especially those who are used to features like C#'s custom attributes) is to use a Property Wrapper, available since Swift 5.1 (Xcode 11.0).
First, create a new property wrapper struct that can sort Comparable elements:
#propertyWrapper
public struct Sorting<V : MutableCollection & RandomAccessCollection>
where V.Element : Comparable
{
var value: V
public init(wrappedValue: V) {
value = wrappedValue
value.sort()
}
public var wrappedValue: V {
get { value }
set {
value = newValue
value.sort()
}
}
}
and then assuming you implement Comparable-conformance for Person:
extension Person : Comparable {
static func < (lhs: Person, rhs: Person) -> Bool {
lhs.age < lhs.age
}
static func == (lhs: Person, rhs: Person) -> Bool {
lhs.age == lhs.age
}
}
you can declare your property like this and it will be auto-sorted on init or set:
struct SomeStructOrClass
{
#Sorting var people: [Person]
}
// … (given `someStructOrClass` is an instance of `SomeStructOrClass`)
someStructOrClass.people = sample
let oldestPerson = someStructOrClass.people.last
Caveat: Property wrappers are not allowed (as of time of writing, Swift 5.7.1) in top-level code— they need to be applied to a property var in a struct, class, or enum.
To more literally follow your sample code, you could easily also create a ReverseSorting property wrapper:
#propertyWrapper
public struct ReverseSorting<V : MutableCollection & RandomAccessCollection & BidirectionalCollection>
where V.Element : Comparable
{
// Implementation is almost the same, except you'll want to also call `value.reverse()`:
// value = …
// value.sort()
// value.reverse()
}
and then the oldest person will be at the first element:
// …
#Sorting var people: [Person]
// …
someStructOrClass.people = sample
let oldestPerson = someStructOrClass.people[0]
And even more directly, if your use-case demands using a comparison closure via sort(by:…) instead of implementing Comparable conformance, you can do that to:
#propertyWrapper
public struct SortingBy<V : MutableCollection & RandomAccessCollection>
{
var value: V
private var _areInIncreasingOrder: (V.Element, V.Element) -> Bool
public init(wrappedValue: V, by areInIncreasingOrder: #escaping (V.Element, V.Element) -> Bool) {
_areInIncreasingOrder = areInIncreasingOrder
value = wrappedValue
value.sort(by: _areInIncreasingOrder)
}
public var wrappedValue: V {
get { value }
set {
value = newValue
value.sort(by: _areInIncreasingOrder)
}
}
}
// …
#SortingBy(by: { a, b in a.age > b.age }) var people: [Person] = []
// …
someStructOrClass.people = sample
let oldestPerson = someStructOrClass.people[0]
Caveat: The way SortingBy's init currently works, you'll need to specify an initial value ([]). You can remove this requirement with an additional init (see Swift docs), but that approach is much less complicated when your property wrapper works on a concrete type (e.g. if you wrote a non-generic PersonArraySortingBy property wrapper), as opposed to a generic-on-protocols property wrapper.