I have defined a generic class as follows
class A<T:Any>{
var value:T?
}
I would like to know how I could limit T to be of a function type and can write code like value() in Class A.
let a = A<()->()>()
I was having a similar problem, I ended up solving it like so:
First I defined a generic type representing a function which accepts a single parameter, and return value:
typealias Monad<A, R> = (A) -> (R)
I then defined my class to take a generic type parameter for the input type. In my case, every function passed was going to return void so I didn't need two type parameters.
class HoldsMyCallback<A> {
let callback: Monad<A, Void>
init(callback: #escaping Monad<A, Void>) {
self.callback = callback
}
}
...
let funcKoozie = HoldsMyCallback<Int> {
print("keep my \($0) function cold")
}
funcKoozie.callback(1)
Referring to Apple's Documentation:
Generic code enables you to write flexible, reusable functions and
types that can work with any type, subject to requirements that you
define.
This is the main purpose of using Generics.
In your case, probably, this is the not right way of how to use them. You might want to make more simple:
typealias funcion = ()->()
class A {
private var value:funcion?
init(value: #escaping funcion) {
self.value = value
}
func doSomething() {
print("do something 01")
if let iplementedValue = value {
iplementedValue()
}
print("do something 02")
}
}
Instantiation:
let aObject = A(value: {
print("I want to this in the middle of my \"doSomething\"")
})
aObject.doSomething()
The output should looks like:
do somthing 01
I want to this in the middle of my "doSomething"
do somthing 02
Hope that helped.
Related
I try to call a class method on a generic T: BaseModel where T can be a subclass of BaseModel.
For example Car.
In the case T should be Car, I want my class method to be called on the Car class.
However, It always ends up calling the BaseModel class method instead.
class func parse<T: BaseModel>(json: JSON, context: NSManagedObjectContext) throws -> T? {
return T.classParseMethod(json: json) //This never calls the Car.classParseMethod()
}
where
let carObject = parse(json:json, context:context) as? Car
Any help?
The casting is done after the function call so the generic constraint resolves to T = BaseModel. You want the function to know of the type so it can properly resolve the generic constraint:
func parse<T: BaseModel>(_ str: String) -> T? {
print(T.Type.self) // should print like: Car.Type
return T.parse(str) as? T
}
// Make the desired type known to swift
let car: Car? = parse("My Car Format String")
One solution that seems to work is:
to add
func myFunc<T: BaseModel>(_ type: T.Type,..) -> T? {
type.aClassFunc()
{
If I call the following, it works.
if let obj = myFunc(Car.self, ...) {
// obj will be of type Car
}
It seems really too much just to achieve this but there might be an underlying reason for it.
I'm currently trying out with some basic data structures like LinkedList. I defined a ListNode class of generics values, like this:
class ListNode<T> {
var nodeContent: T
var nextNode: ListNode<T>? = nil
init() {
// details omitted here
}
And then a linked list. I want to implement the contains() method, so I have sth like this:
func contains<T>(_ item: T) -> Bool {
var currNode = self.head
while (currNode != nil) {
if currNode?.nodeContent == item {
return true
}
currNode = currNode?.nextNode
}
return false
}
Then it's giving me error saying that '==' cannot applied to T and T types. I then looked through the language guide and changed ListNode class and LinkedList struct to this:
class ListNode<T: Equatable>{}
struct LinkedList<T: Equatable>{}
But it's not working, so I added 'Equatable' to func itself:
func contains<T: Equatable>(_ item: T) -> Bool
Still fails. I tried pasting the sample function from the language guide inside,
func findIndex<T: Equatable>(of valueToFind: T, in array:[T]) -> Int? {
for (index, value) in array.enumerated() {
if value == valueToFind {
return index
}
}
return nil
}
No error occurs. May I know why it's like this? I tried searching, but all suggested answers like this doesn't clear my doubts. Thanks in advance!
You just don't need to make the contains method generic (twice). It's inside of your already generic class and knows about T type. It's right to require T: Equatable in the type declaration.
findIndex(of:in:) works as is, because it's not a method, but rather a standalone generic function.
Is there a point to declaring a static function on a protocol? The client using the protocol has to call the function on a type conforming to the protocol anyway right? That breaks the idea of not having to know the type conforming to the protocol IMO. Is there a way to call the static function on the protocol in a way where I don't have to know the actual type conforming to my protocol?
Nice question. Here is my humble point of view:
Is there a point to declaring a static function on a protocol?
Pretty much the same as having instance methods declared in a protocol.
The client using the protocol has to call the function on a type conforming to the protocol anyway right?
Yes, exactly like instance functions.
That breaks the idea of not having to know the type conforming to the protocol IMO.
Nope. Look at the following code:
protocol Feline {
var name: String { get }
static func createRandomFeline() -> Feline
init()
}
extension Feline {
static func createRandomFeline() -> Feline {
return arc4random_uniform(2) > 0 ? Tiger() : Leopard()
}
}
class Tiger: Feline {
let name = "Tiger"
required init() {}
}
class Leopard: Feline {
let name = "Leopard"
required init() {}
}
let feline: Feline = arc4random_uniform(2) > 0 ? Tiger() : Leopard()
let anotherFeline = feline.dynamicType.createRandomFeline()
I don't know the real type inside the variable feline. I just know that it does conform to Feline. However I am invoking a static protocol method.
Is there a better way to do this?
I see, you would like to call a static method/function declared in a protocol without creating a value that conforms to the protocol.
Something like this:
Feline.createRandomFeline() // DANGER: compiler is not happy now
Honestly I don't know the reason why this is not possible.
yes this is possible:
Swift 3
protocol Thing {
static func genericFunction()
}
//... in another file
var things:[Thing] = []
for thing in things {
type(of: thing).genericFunction()
}
Thank you #appzYourLife for the help! Your answer inspired my answer.
#appzYourLife answered my question. I had an underlying issue I was trying to resolve and the following code resolves my issue, so I'll post this here, maybe it helps someone with my same underlying question:
protocol MyProtocol {
static func aStaticFunc()
}
class SomeClassThatUsesMyProtocolButDoesntConformToIt {
var myProtocolType: MyProtocol.Type
init(protocolType: MyProtocol.Type) {
myProtocolType = protocolType
}
func aFunction() {
myProtocolType.aStaticFunc()
}
}
I created another solution for this case. IMHO this is quite clean and simple.
First, create a protocol for accessing instance type.
protocol TypeAccessible {
func type() -> Self.Type
}
extension TypeAccessible {
func type() -> Self.Type {
return Swift.type(of: self)
}
}
then create your concrete class as here. The point is your protocol should conform to TypeAccessible protocol.
protocol FooProtocol: TypeAccessible {
static func bar()
}
class Foo: FooProtocol {
static func bar() { }
}
On call site use it as
let instance: FooProtocol = Foo()
instance.type().bar()
For further use cases, just make sure your protocols conform to TypeAccessible and that's all.
A little late to the party on this one.
Here's my solution for "adding" static properties/functions/types to a protocol using typealias.
For example:
enum PropertyScope {
case all
case none
}
struct PropertyNotifications {
static var propertyDidChange =
Notification.Name("propertyDidChangeNotification")
}
protocol Property {
typealias Scope = PropertyScope
typealias Notifications = PropertyNotifications
var scope: Scope { get set }
}
Then you can do this anywhere in your code:
func postNotification() {
let scope: Property.Scope = .all
NotificationCenter.post(name: Property.Notifications.propertyDidChange,
object: scope)
}
Using protocols like Java interfaces is rarely a good idea. They are meta types, meant for defining contracts, which is an entirely different kind of thing.
That being said, just for the point of understanding, I find the most simple and effective way for creating the equivalent of a static factory method of a protocol to write a free function.
It should contain the protocol's name, hoping that that will prevent name clashes, and improve discoverability.
In other languages, createP would be a static member of P, named create and be called as P.create(...), which would drastically improve discoverability and guarantee to prevent name clashes.
In swift, though, this is not an option for protocols, so if protocols are for some reason really actually used as a replacement for interfaces, at least including the protocol's name in the function's name is an ugly workaround that's still slightly better than nothing.
P.S. in case the goal is actually to achieve something like an inheritance hierarchy with structs, union style enums are the tool that's meant to serve that purpose :)
protocol P
{
var x: Int { get }
}
func createP() -> P
{
if (todayIsMonday())
{
return A()
}
else
{
return B()
}
}
class A: P
{
var x = 5
}
class B: P
{
var x = 7
}
This isn't an answer so much as it is an extension to the question. Say I have:
#objc public protocol InteractivelyNameable: Nameable {
static func alertViewForNaming(completion:#escaping((_ success: Bool, _ didCancel: Bool, _ error: Error?) -> Void)) -> UIAlertController?
}
And I have a generic view controller that manages various types (generic type is .fetchableObjectType... basically NSFetchResult). I need to check if a specific object type conforms to the protocol, and if so, invoke it.
something like:
// valid swift code
if self.dataSource.fetchableObjectType is InteractivelyNameable {
// not valid swift code
if let alert = (self.dataSource.fetchableObjectType as InteractivelyNameable).alertViewForNaming(....)
}
I had a situation where I need to create same DomainModel object from 2 different response. so this (static method in protocol helped me) approach helped me.
protocol BaseResponseKeyList: CodingKey {
static func getNameKey()->Self
}
enum FirstResponseKeyList: String, BaseResponseKeyList {
case name
func getNameKey()->FirstResponseKeyList {
return .name
}
}
enum SecondResponseKeyList: String, BaseResponseKeyList {
case userName
func getNameKey()->SecondResponseKeyList {
return .userName
}
}
struct MyDomainModel<T:BaseResponseKeyList> : Decodable {
var name:String?
required init(from d:Decoder) {
do {
let container = try d.container(keyedBy:T.self)
name = try container.decode(String.self, forKey:T.getNameKey())
}catch(_) {
print("error")
}
}
}
let myDomainModel = try JSONDecoder().decode(MyDomainModel <FirstResponseKeyList>.self, from: data)
let myDomainModel2 = try JSONDecoder().decode(MyDomainModel <SecondResponseKeyList>.self, from: data2)
I'm trying to create a protocol in Swift I can use for object construction. The problem I'm running into is that I need to store the type information so the type can be constructed later and returned in a callback. I can't seem to find a way to store it without either crashing the compiler or creating build errors. Here's the basics (a contrived, but working example):
protocol Model {
init(values: [String])
func printValues()
}
struct Request<T:Model> {
let returnType:T.Type
let callback:T -> ()
}
We have a simple protocol that declares a init (for construction) and another func printValues() (for testing). We also define a struct we can use to store the type information and a callback to return the new type when its constructed.
Next we create a constructor:
class Constructor {
var callbacks: [Request<Model>] = []
func construct<T:Model>(type:T.Type, callback: T -> ()) {
callback(type(values: ["value1", "value2"]))
}
func queueRequest<T:Model>(request: Request<T>) {
callbacks.append(request)
}
func next() {
if let request = callbacks.first {
let model = request.returnType(values: ["value1", "value2"])
request.callback(model)
}
}
}
A couple things to note: This causes a compiler crash. It can't figure this out for some reason. The problem appears to be var callbacks: [Request<Model>] = []. If I comment out everything else, the compiler still crashes. Commenting out the var callbacks and the compiler stops crashing.
Also, the func construct works fine. But it doesn't store the type information so it's not so useful to me. I put in there for demonstration.
I found I could prevent the compiler from crashing if I remove the protocol requirement from the Request struct: struct Request<T>. In this case everything works and compiles but I still need to comment out let model = request.returnType(values: ["value1", "value2"]) in func next(). That is also causing a compiler crash.
Here's a usage example:
func construct() {
let constructor = Constructor()
let request = Request(returnType: TypeA.self) { req in req.printValues() }
//This works fine
constructor.construct(TypeA.self) { a in
a.printValues()
}
//This is what I want
constructor.queueRequest(request)
constructor.next() //The callback in the request object should be called and the values should print
}
Does anyone know how I can store type information restricted to a specific protocol to the type can later be constructed dynamically and returned in a callback?
If you want the exact same behavior of next I would suggest to do this:
class Constructor {
// store closures
var callbacks: [[String] -> ()] = []
func construct<T:Model>(type:T.Type, callback: T -> ()) {
callback(type(values: ["value1", "value2"]))
}
func queueRequest<T:Model>(request: Request<T>) {
// some code from the next function so you don't need to store the generic type itself
// **EDIT** changed closure to type [String] -> () in order to call it with different values
callbacks.append({ values in
let model = request.returnType(values: values)
request.callback(model)
})
}
func next(values: [String]) {
callbacks.first?(values)
}
}
Now you can call next with your values. Hopefully this works for you.
EDIT: Made some changes to the closure type and the next function
Unfortunately there is no way to save specific generic types in an array and dynamically call their methods because Swift is a static typed language (and Array has to have unambiguous types).
But hopefully we can express something like this in the future like so:
var callbacks: [Request<T: Model>] = []
Where T could be anything but has to conform to Model for example.
Your queueRequest method shouldn't have to know the generic type the Request it's being passed. Since callbacks is an array of Request<Model> types, the method just needs to know that the request being queued is of the type Request<Model>. It doesn't matter what the generic type is.
This code builds for me in a Playground:
class Constructor {
var callbacks: [Request<Model>] = []
func construct<T:Model>(type:T.Type, callback: T -> ()) {
callback(type(values: ["value1", "value2"]))
}
func queueRequest(request: Request<Model>) {
callbacks.append(request)
}
func next() {
if let request = callbacks.first {
let model = request.returnType(values: ["value1", "value2"])
request.callback(model)
}
}
}
So I found an answer that seems to do exactly what I want. I haven't confirmed this works yet in live code, but it does compile without any errors. Turns out, I needed to add one more level of redirection:
I create another protocol explicitly for object construction:
protocol ModelConstructor {
func constructWith(values:[String])
}
In my Request struct, I conform to this protocol:
struct Request<T:Model> : ModelConstructor {
let returnType:T.Type
let callback:T -> ()
func constructWith(values:[String]) {
let model = returnType(values: values)
callback(model)
}
}
Notice the actual construction is moved into the Request struct. Technically, the Constructor is no longer constructing, but for now I leave its name alone. I can now store the Request struct as ModelConstructor and correctly queue Requests:
class Constructor {
var callbacks: [ModelConstructor] = []
func queueRequest(request: Request<Model>) {
queueRequest(request)
}
func queueRequest(request: ModelConstructor) {
callbacks.append(request)
}
func next() {
if let request = callbacks.first {
request.constructWith(["value1", "value2"])
callbacks.removeAtIndex(0)
}
}
}
Note something special here: I can now successfully "queue" (or store in an array) Request<Model>, but I must do so indirectly by calling queueRequest(request: ModelConstructor). In this case, I'm overloading but that's not necessary. What matters here is that if I try to call callbacks.append(request) in the queueRequest(request: Request<Model>) function, the Swift compiler crashes. Apparently we need to hold the compiler's hand here a little so it can understand what exactly we want.
What I've found is that you cannot separate Type information from Type Construction. It needs to be all in the same place (in this case it's the Request struct). But so long as you keep construction coupled with the Type information, you're free to delay/store the construction until you have the information you need to actually construct the object.
Building on previous question which got resolved, but it led to another problem. If protocol/class types are stored in a collection, retrieving and instantiating them back throws an error. a hypothetical example is below. The paradigm is based on "Program to Interface not an implementation" What does it mean to "program to an interface"?
instantiate from protocol.Type reference dynamically at runtime
public protocol ISpeakable {
init()
func speak()
}
class Cat : ISpeakable {
required init() {}
func speak() {
println("Meow");
}
}
class Dog : ISpeakable {
required init() {}
func speak() {
println("Woof");
}
}
//Test class is not aware of the specific implementations of ISpeakable at compile time
class Test {
func instantiateAndCallSpeak<T: ISpeakable>(Animal:T.Type) {
let animal = Animal()
animal.speak()
}
}
// Users of the Test class are aware of the specific implementations at compile/runtime
//works
let t = Test()
t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(Cat.self)
t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(Dog.self)
//doesn't work if types are retrieved from a collection
//Uncomment to show Error - IAnimal.Type is not convertible to T.Type
var animals: [ISpeakable.Type] = [Cat.self, Dog.self, Cat.self]
for animal in animals {
//t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(animal) //throws error
}
for (index:Int, value:ISpeakable.Type) in enumerate(animals) {
//t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(value) //throws error
}
Edit - My current workaround to iterate through collection but of course it's limiting as the api has to know all sorts of implementations. The other limitation is subclasses of these types (for instance PersianCat, GermanShepherd) will not have their overridden functions called or I go to Objective-C for rescue (NSClassFromString etc.) or wait for SWIFT to support this feature.
Note (background): these types are pushed into array by users of the utility and for loop is executed on notification
var animals: [ISpeakable.Type] = [Cat.self, Dog.self, Cat.self]
for Animal in animals {
if Animal is Cat.Type {
if let AnimalClass = Animal as? Cat.Type {
var instance = AnimalClass()
instance.speak()
}
} else if Animal is Dog.Type {
if let AnimalClass = Animal as? Dog.Type {
var instance = AnimalClass()
instance.speak()
}
}
}
Basically the answer is: correct, you can't do that. Swift needs to determine the concrete types of type parameters at compile time, not at runtime. This comes up in a lot of little corner cases. For instance, you can't construct a generic closure and store it in a variable without type-specifying it.
This can be a little clearer if we boil it down to a minimal test case
protocol Creatable { init() }
struct Object : Creatable { init() {} }
func instantiate<T: Creatable>(Thing: T.Type) -> T {
return Thing()
}
// works. object is of type "Object"
let object = instantiate(Object.self) // (1)
// 'Creatable.Type' is not convertible to 'T.Type'
let type: Creatable.Type = Object.self
let thing = instantiate(type) // (2)
At line 1, the compiler has a question: what type should T be in this instance of instantiate? And that's easy, it should be Object. That's a concrete type, so everything is fine.
At line 2, there's no concrete type that Swift can make T. All it has is Creatable, which is an abstract type (we know by code inspection the actual value of type, but Swift doesn't consider the value, just the type). It's ok to take and return protocols, but it's not ok to make them into type parameters. It's just not legal Swift today.
This is hinted at in the Swift Programming Language: Generic Parameters and Arguments:
When you declare a generic type, function, or initializer, you specify the type parameters that the generic type, function, or initializer can work with. These type parameters act as placeholders that are replaced by actual concrete type arguments when an instance of a generic type is created or a generic function or initializer is called. (emphasis mine)
You'll need to do whatever you're trying to do another way in Swift.
As a fun bonus, try explicitly asking for the impossible:
let thing = instantiate(Creatable.self)
And... swift crashes.
From your further comments, I think closures do exactly what you're looking for. You've made your protocol require trivial construction (init()), but that's an unnecessary restriction. You just need the caller to tell the function how to construct the object. That's easy with a closure, and there is no need for type parameterization at all this way. This isn't a work-around; I believe this is the better way to implement that pattern you're describing. Consider the following (some minor changes to make the example more Swift-like):
// Removed init(). There's no need for it to be trivially creatable.
// Cocoa protocols that indicate a method generally end in "ing"
// (NSCopying, NSCoding, NSLocking). They do not include "I"
public protocol Speaking {
func speak()
}
// Converted these to structs since that's all that's required for
// this example, but it works as well for classes.
struct Cat : Speaking {
func speak() {
println("Meow");
}
}
struct Dog : Speaking {
func speak() {
println("Woof");
}
}
// Demonstrating a more complex object that is easy with closures,
// but hard with your original protocol
struct Person: Speaking {
let name: String
func speak() {
println("My name is \(name)")
}
}
// Removed Test class. There was no need for it in the example,
// but it works fine if you add it.
// You pass a closure that returns a Speaking. We don't care *how* it does
// that. It doesn't have to be by construction. It could return an existing one.
func instantiateAndCallSpeak(builder: () -> Speaking) {
let animal = builder()
animal.speak()
}
// Can call with an immediate form.
// Note that Cat and Dog are not created here. They are not created until builder()
// is called above. #autoclosure would avoid the braces, but I typically avoid it.
instantiateAndCallSpeak { Cat() }
instantiateAndCallSpeak { Dog() }
// Can put them in an array, though we do have to specify the type here. You could
// create a "typealias SpeakingBuilder = () -> Speaking" if that came up a lot.
// Again note that no Speaking objects are created here. These are closures that
// will generate objects when applied.
// Notice how easy it is to pass parameters here? These don't all have to have the
// same initializers.
let animalBuilders: [() -> Speaking] = [{ Cat() } , { Dog() }, { Person(name: "Rob") }]
for animal in animalBuilders {
instantiateAndCallSpeak(animal)
}