I'm experimenting usage of closurse for First Order Predicate calculus, and
I intend to define the following function :
func ASSUM<U, V>(p: #escaping Pred<U>) -> (Pred<U>) -> Pred<(U, V)> {
return { q in AND1(p: p, q: q) }
}
that takes as parameter a predicate p: Pred<U>, where Pred<U> is a typealias for (T) -> Bool:
typealias Pred<T> = (T) -> Bool
The return of ASSUM is a Predicate transformer closure of type (Pred<U>)->Pred<(U,V)>.
However the compiler return the following error :
Passing non-escaping parameter 'q' to function expecting an #escaping closure
I understand that the function AND1 as defined requests an escaping parameter :
func AND1<U, V>(p: #escaping Pred<U>, q: #escaping Pred<V>) -> Pred<(U, V)> {
return { (x, y) in (p(x) && q(y)) }
}
but I did not succeed in explicitly making q in { q in AND1(p: p, q: q) } escaping.
How can I fix this?
You must explictly add the #escaping attribute to the argument of the return type closure of ASSUM:
typealias Pred<T> = (T)->Bool
func AND1<U, V>(p: #escaping Pred<U> , q: #escaping Pred<V>) -> Pred<(U, V)> {
return { (x,y) in (p(x) && q(y)) }
}
func ASSUM<U, V>(p: #escaping Pred<U>) -> (#escaping Pred<V>) -> Pred<(U, V)> {
/* ^ note: I believe you
want V here, not U */
return { AND1(p: p, q: $0) }
}
In the returned closure, q (anonymous $0 argument) is correctly inferred as #escaping (and needn't be explicitly marked as such, as pointed out by #Hamish, thanks!).
Note also that the generic type V in ASSUM must be inferred by explicit type annotation (or conversion) by the caller, as it is not included in any of the arguments to ASSUM.
/* example usage */
let foo = { $0 < 2 }
let bar = { $0 != "bar" }
let fooAnd: (#escaping Pred<String>) -> Pred<(Int, String)> = ASSUM(p: foo)
let fooAndBar = fooAnd(bar)
print(fooAndBar((1, "foo"))) // true
print(fooAndBar((1, "bar"))) // false
print(fooAndBar((2, "foo"))) // false
Finally, ALLCAPITAL function names is not in line with the Swift naming convention: you should prefer camelCase naming instead (see e.g. the Swift API guidelines for additional details).
Related
extension Array {
func reduce<T>(_ initial: T, combine: (T, Element) -> T) -> T {
var result = initial
for x in self {
result = combine(result, x)
}
return result
}
}
How does the below function work when it only passes a * to the combine closure?
func productUsingReduce(integers: [Int]) -> Int {
return integers.reduce(1, combine: *)
}
static func * (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Self is an operator function defined on the Numeric protocol. So, you are really just passing in a function that takes two arguments.
What does the declaration mean?
combine: (T, Element) -> T
It says: the combine parameter is a function that takes two parameters, a T and an Element, and returns a T.
Well, in Swift, operators are functions, and * is such a function. So it suffices to pass a reference to this function as the combine parameter. The bare name, *, is that reference.
I am a Javascripter and I love using the not/negate function:
function not (predicateFunc) {
return function () {
return !predicateFunc.apply(this, arguments);
};
}
I am trying to do the same thing with swift:
func not <A> (_ f: #escaping (_ A: Any) -> Bool) -> (A) -> Bool {
return { a in !f(a) }
}
But I am getting errors like
generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred
and
Cannot convert value of type '(_) -> Bool' to expected argument type '(Any) -> Bool'
The outcome I am looking for is when I have a function like this:
func isEmpty<T: Collection>(collection: T) -> Bool {
return collection.count == 0
}
I can just create a notEmpty function like this:
let notEmpty = not(isEmpty)
And then use it like
notEmpty([3,4,5]) // true
What am I doing wrong?
Using Any is a code smell. You can just extend Collection directly:
extension Collection {
var notEmpty: Bool {
return !isEmpty
}
}
[1, 3, 5].notEmpty // true
Your functional definition of not can work like this:
func not <A> (_ f: #escaping (_ a: A) -> Bool) -> (A) -> Bool {
return { a in !f(a) }
}
But to call it you would need something like this:
let arrayNotEmpty = not { (array: [Int]) in array.isEmpty }
arrayNotEmpty([1, 3, 5]) // true
You have two errors:
You're using A as both the type parameter and as the argument name.
You're using Any as the argument type instead of using the type parameter (A) as the argument type.
Try this:
func not<A>(predicate: #escaping (A) -> Bool) -> (A) -> Bool {
return { !predicate($0) }
}
Note that in this version, I'm not using argument names for the predicate argument. You don't need an argument name in the declaration ((A) -> Bool) and I'm using the anonymous argument name ($0) in the body.
Okay, so you want to write this:
func isEmpty<T: Collection>(collection: T) -> Bool {
return collection.count == 0
}
func not<A>(_ predicate: #escaping (A) -> Bool) -> (A) -> Bool {
return { !predicate($0) }
}
let notEmpty = not(isEmpty)
And you get this error:
let notEmpty = not(isEmpty)
^ Generic parameter 'A' could not be inferred
The problem is that this code tries to create a generic closure, but Swift doesn't support generic closures.
That is to say, what would the type of nonEmpty be? It would be something like:
<A: Collection>(A) -> Bool
and Swift doesn't support that.
Here is my code:
protocol SomeProtocol {
}
class A: SomeProtocol {
}
func f1<T: SomeProtocol>(ofType: T.Type, listener: (T?) -> Void) {
}
func f2<T: SomeProtocol>(ofType: T.Type, listener: ([T]?) -> Void) {
}
func g() {
let l1: (SomeProtocol?) -> Void = ...
let l2: ([SomeProtocol]?) -> Void = ...
f1(ofType: A.self, listener: l1) // NO ERROR
f2(ofType: A.self, listener: l2) // COMPILE ERROR: Cannot convert value of type '([SomeProtocol]?) -> Void' to expected argument type '([_]?) -> Void'
}
What is the problem with the second closure having an argument of an array of generic type objects?
Swift 4.1 Update
This is a bug that was fixed in this pull request, which will make it into the release of Swift 4.1. Your code now compiles as expected in a 4.1 snapshot.
Pre Swift 4.1
This just looks like you're just stretching the compiler too far.
It can deal with conversions from arrays of sub-typed elements to arrays of super-typed elements, e.g [A] to [SomeProtocol] – this is covariance. It's worth noting that arrays have always been an edge case here, as arbitrary generics are invariant. Certain collections, such as Array, just get special treatment from the compiler allowing for covariance.
It can deal with conversions of functions with super-typed parameters to functions with sub-typed parameters, e.g (SomeProtocol) -> Void to (A) -> Void – this is contravariance.
However it appears that it currently cannot do both in one go (but really it should be able to; feel free to file a bug).
For what it's worth, this has nothing to do with generics, the following reproduces the same behaviour:
protocol SomeProtocol {}
class A : SomeProtocol {}
func f1(listener: (A) -> Void) {}
func f2(listener: ([A]) -> Void) {}
func f3(listener: () -> [SomeProtocol]) {}
func g() {
let l1: (SomeProtocol) -> Void = { _ in }
f1(listener: l1) // NO ERROR
let l2: ([SomeProtocol]) -> Void = { _ in }
f2(listener: l2)
// COMPILER ERROR: Cannot convert value of type '([SomeProtocol]) -> Void' to
// expected argument type '([A]) -> Void'
// it's the same story for function return types
let l3: () -> [A] = { [] }
f3(listener: l3)
// COMPILER ERROR: Cannot convert value of type '() -> [A]' to
// expected argument type '() -> [SomeProtocol]'
}
Until fixed, one solution in this case is to simply use a closure expression to act as a trampoline between the two function types:
// converting a ([SomeProtocol]) -> Void to a ([A]) -> Void.
// compiler infers closure expression to be of type ([A]) -> Void, and in the
// implementation, $0 gets implicitly converted from [A] to [SomeProtocol].
f2(listener: { l2($0) })
// converting a () -> [A] to a () -> [SomeProtocol].
// compiler infers closure expression to be of type () -> [SomeProtocol], and in the
// implementation, the result of l3 gets implicitly converted from [A] to [SomeProtocol]
f3(listener: { l3() })
And, applied to your code:
f2(ofType: A.self, listener: { l2($0) })
This works because the compiler infers the closure expression to be of type ([T]?) -> Void, which can be passed to f2. In the implementation of the closure, the compiler then performs an implicit conversion of $0 from [T]? to [SomeProtocol]?.
And, as Dominik is hinting at, this trampoline could also be done as an additional overload of f2:
func f2<T : SomeProtocol>(ofType type: T.Type, listener: ([SomeProtocol]?) -> Void) {
// pass a closure expression of type ([T]?) -> Void to the original f2, we then
// deal with the conversion from [T]? to [SomeProtocol]? in the closure.
// (and by "we", I mean the compiler, implicitly)
f2(ofType: type, listener: { (arr: [T]?) in listener(arr) })
}
Allowing you to once again call it as f2(ofType: A.self, listener: l2).
The listener closure in func f2<T: SomeProtocol>(ofType: T.Type, listener: ([T]?) -> Void) {...} requires its argument to be an array of T, where T is a type that implements SomeProtocol. By writing <T: SomeProtocol>, you are enforcing that all elements of that array are of the same type.
Say for example you have two classes: A and B. Both are completely distinct. Yet both implement SomeProtocol. In this case, the input array cannot be [A(), B()] because of the type constraint. The input array can either be [A(), A()] or [B(), B()].
But, when you define l2 as let l2: ([SomeProtocol]?) -> Void = ..., you allow the closure to accept an argument such as [A(), B()]. Hence this closure, and the closure you define in f2 are incompatible and the compiler cannot convert between the two.
Unfortunately, you cannot add type enforcement to a variable such as l2 as stated here. What you can do is if you know that l2 is going to work on arrays of class A, you could redefine it as follows:
let l2: ([A]?) -> Void = { ... }
Let me try and explain this with a simpler example. Let's say you write a generic function to find the greatest element in an array of comparables:
func greatest<T: Comparable>(array: [T]) -> T {
// return greatest element in the array
}
Now if you try calling that function like so:
let comparables: [Comparable] = [1, "hello"]
print(greatest(array: comparables))
The compiler will complain since there is no way to compare an Int and a String. What you must instead do is follows:
let comparables: [Int] = [1, 5, 2]
print(greatest(array: comparables))
Have nothing on Hamish's answer, he is 100% right. But if you wanna super simple solution without any explanation or code just work, when working with array of generics protocol, use this:
func f1<T: SomeProtocol>(ofType: T.Type, listener: (T?) -> Void) {
}
func f2<Z: SomeProtocol>(ofType: Z.Type, listener: ([SomeProtocol]?) -> Void) {
}
Is there a more elegant way to filter with an additional parameter (or map, reduce).
When I filter with a single parameter, we get a beautiful easy to ready syntax
let numbers = Array(1...10)
func isGreaterThan5(number:Int) -> Bool {
return number > 5
}
numbers.filter(isGreaterThan5)
However, if I need to pass an additional parameter to my function it turns out ugly
func isGreaterThanX(number:Int,x:Int) -> Bool {
return number > x
}
numbers.filter { (number) -> Bool in
isGreaterThanX(number: number, x: 8)
}
I would like to use something like
numbers.filter(isGreaterThanX(number: $0, x: 3))
but this gives a compile error annonymous closure argument not contained in a closure
You could change your function to return a closure which serves
as predicate for the filter method:
func isGreaterThan(_ lowerBound: Int) -> (Int) -> Bool {
return { $0 > lowerBound }
}
let filtered = numbers.filter(isGreaterThan(5))
isGreaterThan is a function taking an Int argument and returning
a closure of type (Int) -> Bool. The returned closure "captures"
the value of the given lower bound.
If you make the function generic then it can be used with
other comparable types as well:
func isGreaterThan<T: Comparable>(_ lowerBound: T) -> (T) -> Bool {
return { $0 > lowerBound }
}
print(["D", "C", "B", "A"].filter(isGreaterThan("B")))
In this particular case however, a literal closure is also easy to read:
let filtered = numbers.filter( { $0 > 5 })
And just for the sake of completeness: Using the fact that
Instance Methods are Curried Functions in Swift, this would work as well:
extension Comparable {
func greaterThanFilter(value: Self) -> Bool {
return value > self
}
}
let filtered = numbers.filter(5.greaterThanFilter)
but the "reversed logic" might be confusing.
Remark: In earlier Swift versions you could use a curried function
syntax:
func isGreaterThan(lowerBound: Int)(value: Int) -> Bool {
return value > lowerBound
}
but this feature has been removed in Swift 3.
Swift 3 has introduced the #discardableResult annotation for functions to disable the warnings for an unused function return value.
I'm looking for a way to silence this warning for closures.
Currently, my code looks like this:
func f(x: Int) -> Int -> Int {
func g(_ y: Int) -> Int {
doSomething(with: x, and: y)
return x*y
}
return g
}
In various places I call f once to obtain a closure g which I then call repeatedly:
let g = f(5)
g(3)
g(7)
g(11)
In most places I'm only interested in the side effects of the nested call to doSomething, and not in the return value of the closure g. With Swift 3, there are now dozens of warnings in my project for the unused result. Is there a way to suppress the warnings besides changing the calls to g to _ = g(...) everywhere? I couldn't find a place where I could place the #discardableResult annotation.
I don't think there's a way to apply that attribute to a closure. You could capture your closure in another that discards the result:
func discardingResult<T, U>(_ f: #escaping (T) -> U) -> (T) -> Void {
return { x in _ = f(x) }
}
let g = f(5)
g(3) // warns
let h = discardingResult(g)
h(4) // doesn't warn
I was looking for an answer to this recently, and I've found another way (a newer way) to do this!
It could arguably be overkill for some simple problems, but I just thought that this is an interesting yet neat approach that's worth sharing.
Say you have a closure that doubles an integer value:
let double = { (int: Int) -> Int in
return int * 2
}
With Swift 5.0 (SE-0216) introducing the #dynamicCallable attribute, you can "wrap" your closure with #discardableResult by creating a dynamically callable class or struct as such:
// same for struct, except without the need of an initializer
#dynamicCallable
class DiscardableResultClosure<T, U> {
var closure: (T) -> U
#discardableResult
func dynamicallyCall(withArguments args: [Any]) -> U {
let arg = args.first as! T
return self.closure(arg)
}
// implicit for struct
init(closure: #escaping (T) -> U) {
self.closure = closure
}
}
double(5) // warning: result of call to function returning 'Int' is unused
let discardableDouble = DiscardableResultClosure(closure: double)
discardableDouble(5) // * no warning *
Even better, in Swift 5.2 (SE-0253), you can create a dynamically callable struct using a built-in callAsFunction method without going through the trouble of using the attribute #dynamicCallable (or using class) with its sometimes cumbersome declaration.
struct DiscardableResultClosure<T, U> {
var closure: (T) -> U
#discardableResult
func callAsFunction(_ arg: T) -> U {
return closure(arg)
}
}
let discardableDouble = DiscardableResultClosure(closure: double)
discardableDouble(5) // * no warning *