I have this code of swift struct with getter and setter.
How that value of newValue got inside this setter? I don't know how it was defined.
struct Program {
var allResults : [String] = []
var items: Int {
get {
return allResults.count
}
set {
let result = String(newValue * 100) // what's that newValue, how did it get there?
allResults.append(result)
}
}
It is called Shorthand Setter Declaration.
Cited from Swift 3 book:
If a computed property’s setter does not define a name for the new
value to be set, a default name of newValue is used.
If you would like to have a better readable format, you could use this:
...
set (newItems) { //add your own variable named as you like
let result = String(newItems * 100)
allResults.append(result)
}
...
Related
In a Swift class, I want to use a property as a default parameter value for a method of the same class.
Here is my code :
class animal {
var niceAnimal:Bool
var numberOfLegs:Int
init(numberOfLegs:Int,animalIsNice:Bool) {
self.numberOfLegs = numberOfLegs
self.niceAnimal = animalIsNice
}
func description(animalIsNice:Bool = niceAnimal,numberOfLegs:Int) {
// I'll write my code here
}
}
The problem is that I can't use my niceAnimal property as a default function value, because it triggers me a compile-time error :
'animal.Type' does not have a member named 'niceAnimal'
Am I doing something wrong ? Or is it impossible in Swift ? If that's impossible, do you know why ?
I don't think you're doing anything wrong.
The language specification only says that a default parameter should come before non-default parameters (p169), and that the default value is defined by an expression (p637).
It does not say what that expression is allowed to reference. It seems like it is not allowed to reference the instance on which you are calling the method, i.e., self, which seems like it would be necessary to reference self.niceAnimal.
As a workaround, you could define the default parameter as an optional with a default value of nil, and then set the actual value with an "if let" that references the member variable in the default case, like so:
class animal {
var niceAnimal: Bool
var numberOfLegs: Int
init(numberOfLegs: Int, animalIsNice: Bool) {
self.numberOfLegs = numberOfLegs
self.niceAnimal = animalIsNice
}
func description(numberOfLegs: Int, animalIsNice: Bool? = nil) {
if let animalIsNice = animalIsNice ?? self.niceAnimal {
// print
}
}
}
I think for now you can only use literals and type properties as default arguments.
The best option would be to overload the method, and you can implement the shorter version by calling the full one. I only used a struct here to omit the initializer.
struct Animal {
var niceAnimal: Bool
var numberOfLegs: Int
func description(#numberOfLegs: Int) {
description(niceAnimal, numberOfLegs: numberOfLegs)
}
func description(animalIsNice: Bool, numberOfLegs: Int) {
// do something
}
}
This question already has an answer here:
Swift: Failed to assign value to a property of protocol?
(1 answer)
Closed 6 years ago.
Can someone please tell me why Swift has to call the setter of a property when it's only being used to access an object (a protocol) in order to set one of its properties? This first example shows the error I get if I don't declare the indirect object as settable:
protocol AProtocol {
var name: String { get set }
}
class AnImplementation: AProtocol {
var name = ""
}
class AParent {
var test = AnImplementation()
}
class AChild {
var parent: AParent!
var test: AProtocol {
get { return parent.test }
// Note: Not settable
}
}
var parent = AParent()
var child = AChild()
child.parent = parent
child.test.name = "Hello world!" // Error: Cannot assign to property : 'test' is a get-only property
print(child.test.name)
If I give it a setter, it compiles and works but it calls the setter:
protocol AProtocol {
var name: String { get set }
}
class AnImplementation: AProtocol {
var name = ""
}
class AParent {
var test = AnImplementation()
}
class AChild {
var parent: AParent!
var test: AProtocol {
get { return parent.test }
set(newTest) { print("Shouldn't be here!") }
}
}
var parent = AParent()
var child = AChild()
child.parent = parent
child.test.name = "Hello world!"
print(child.test.name)
Output is:
Shouldn't be here!
Hello world!
I'm not sure what I'm not understanding here. I assume I can just give it an empty setter, but I'd like to understand the reason for it.
Any information is much appreciated!
Change your protocol declaration to this:
protocol AProtocol:class {
var name: String { get set }
}
Otherwise, it is taken by default as a value type. Changing a value type's property replaces the value type instance (as shown by the setter observer). And you can't do that if the reference is a let reference.
This is probably caused by the fact that the compiler doesn't know whether AChild.test is a class or a value type. With classes there is no problem but with value types assigning to name would also create an assignment to test (value-copy behavior). Marking APProtocol as class protocol will fix the problem.
To expand, when the compiler is not sure whether test is a value or a class type, it will use the following rewrite of child.test.name = "Hello world!":
var tmp = child.test
tmp.test = "Hello world!"
child.test = tmp
because that will work for both class and value types.
I have a model class written in Objective-C that I'm converting to Swift. It contains an NSMutableArray internally, but the method signature for the getter, as well as the actual return value, are NSArray. When called, it creates an immutable copy to return.
Essentially, I want callers to be able to iterate/inspect the container, but not modify it. I have this test snippet:
class Container {
internal var myItems = [String]()
func sayHello() {
"I have: \(myItems)"
}
}
let cont = Container()
cont.myItems.append("Neat") // ["Neat"]
cont.sayHello() // This causes sayHello() to print: "I have: [Neat]"
var isThisACopy = cont.myItems
isThisACopy.append("Huh") // ["Neat", "Huh"]
cont.sayHello() // This ALSO causes sayHello() to print: "I have: [Neat]"
I've been trying to find a way to override the getter for myItems so that it returns an immutable copy, but can't seem to determine how.
Attempt #1
This produces a compiler error: Function produces expected type '_ArrayBuffer<(String)>'; did you mean to call it with '()'?
internal var myItems = [String]() {
var copy = [String]()
for item in ... { // What to use in the ...?
copy.append(item)
}
return copy
}
Attempt #2
This also produces a compiler error, because I'm (understandably) redefining the generated getter Invalid redeclaration of 'myItems()':
internal func myItems() -> [String] {
var copy = [String]()
for item in myItems {
copy.append(item)
}
return copy
}
Try this:
class Container {
private var _myItems: [String] = ["hello"]
internal var myItems: [String] {
return _myItems
}
}
let cont = Container()
cont.myItems.append("Neat") //not allowed
It uses a private stored property and a computed property that returns an immutable copy. It's not possible for a stored property to use custom getters.
A better way to expose mutable properties as immutable:
class Container {
private (set) internal var myItems: [String]
}
I have two properties in my class. See this terrible example:
var length
var doubleLength
How do I initialize doubleLength based on length?
init() {
self.length = ...
self.doubleLength = self.length * 2
super.init()
}
I get an error that I can't access self before I call super.init(). Well I need to set all my variables before I can even call super.init() so what am I supposed to do?
if self.doubleLength is always supposed to be twice self.length (in this example) have you considered just using a computed property?
class MyClass: MySuperClass {
var length: Double
var doubleLength: Double {
return self.length * 2
}
init(len: Double) {
self.length = len
super.init()
}
}
You can temporarily delay the initialization of doubleLength an implicitly unwrapped optional, which will allow to temporarily assign a value to nil and assign it at a later time.
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int! = nil
var length: Int {
return 50
}
init() {
super.init()
doubleLength = length * 2
}
}
Anyway, in this specific case I think it would be nicer to make doubleLength a computed property, since it can be always be computed from the value of length. Your class will be like
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int {
return length * 2
}
var length: Int {
return 50
}
}
Thanks for your full reproduction, which is:
import UIKit
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int
var length: Int {
return 50
}
init() {
doubleLength = length * 2
super.init()
}
}
From this we can see that you're using a getter to return your property. I think this is what's causing the problem. For example, if you just do this:
import UIKit
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
var doubleLength: Int
// Simple variable, no code.
var length = 50
init() {
doubleLength = length * 2
super.init()
}
}
...then that works fine.
I believe this is because the Swift compiler is trying to prevent you from doing anything that might mean you use the base class's methods, properties or variables before it's been initialised. I know you're technically not, in your example, but consider how hard it is to trace back and see what's being done from your initialiser. For example, if you were to do:
var length: Int {
// Where "width" is a made-up property of UICollectionViewLayout
return width * 3
}
...then your code would be run from your initialiser and use a property of UICollectionViewLayout before its own init had been called, therefore making it possibly invalid.
So my best guess is that this is the Swift compiler making a blanket ban on calling out to any code outside the subclass initialiser before the super is initialised.
You get exactly the same error if you do this, for example:
class Something: UICollectionViewLayout {
func foo() {
// Do nothing
}
init() {
foo() // error: 'self' used before super.init call
super.init()
}
}
The place I remember this being explained is the "Intermediate Swift" video from WWDC 2014, from slide 191, about 20 minutes in, but I'm guessing it's somewhere in the book, too...
A property that depends on another is bad practice. Just like when you design a database, you avoid calculated fields, when you design classes, you also avoid calculated fields. Instead of having a doubleLength property, you should instead have a getDoubleLength method that returns the length * 2.
Let's say I have a class, and when I set its property, I want it to append that property with a file type like .fileType:
class File {
var fileName: String {
get {
return self.fileName
}
set {
self.fileName = fileName + ".fileType"
}
}
}
Which I try to use like this:
let newFile = File()
newFile.fileName = "My File"
Unfortunately, the variable never sets:
I have two possible workarounds.
Option 1: Observe Value After Set
class File {
var fileName: String = "" {
didSet {
self.fileName += ".fileType"
}
}
}
let file = File()
file.fileName = "SomeName" // SomeName.fileType
But with this, I must wait until the value is already set before I can modify it. For this particular example, it doesn't make too much difference; however, I'd like to be able to avoid this.
Option 2: Subclass
This solution is based on the example here. Search for 'speedLimitedCar'
class File {
var fileName = ""
}
class SubFile: File {
override var fileName: String {
get {
return super.fileName
}
set {
super.fileName = newValue + ".fileType"
}
}
}
let subfile = SubFile()
subfile.fileName = "Hello" // Hello.fileType
Question
I could also just create a secondary property to store the value and access that in the fileName's getter/setter, but is there a way to avoid all that and modify a property directly within its getter / setter?
If you use set and get then the property must be computed. There is no actual storage for it.
This code defines a var to hold the data and a computed var to handle the access. This is similar to what you had in Objective-C (except that in Objective-C you could "hide" the actual variable by making it private or, more recently, having it synthesized an never mentioned in the header).
class File {
// this stores the actual data, do not access it directly, consider it private
var theFileName: String = ""
// this is the real interface
var fileName: String {
get {
return self.theFileName
}
set(name) {
self.theFileName = name + ".fileType"
}
}
}
You can also write the set like this:
set {
self.theFileName = newValue + ".fileType"
}
where newValue is the default name if you omit the argument declaration for set.
But what you probably want to do is what you already did (and rejected for unknown reasons):
var fileName: String = "" {
didSet {
self.fileName += ".fileType"
}
}
This is the correct way.
Note that "I must wait until the value is already set before I can modify it." is not true. It looks like that, but the compiler can very well optimize the code (and probably will).