I have this swift code :
protocol Table {
static var tableName: String { get }
}
class User: Table {
internal static var tableName = "user"
}
I know would like to construct methods with Table protocol parameters.
Something like :
func doSomethingFrom(table: Table) {
print(table.tableName)
}
doSomethingFrom(table: User) // prints "user"
Is there a way to achieve this simply ?
This is the syntax you're looking for. You need to pass the type itself by appending .self. This is to prevent mistakes (since talking about types directly is kind of rare, but easy to do by accident). And you need to take a parameter of the type itself rather than an instance of that type.
func doSomethingFrom(table: Table.Type) {
print(table.tableName)
}
doSomethingFrom(table: User.self) // prints "user"
Since the value of tableName will be the same for all instances of User (because it is static) you can do:
func doSomethingFrom(table: Table) {
print(User.tableName)
// OR:
print(type(of: table).tableName)
}
Make sure though this is what you really want.
Related
I want to have a function return a type which I can add a new function, but still can be generally recognized as String (still have all of String's methods and still can be received by any parameter that received String).
But when I try to derive a class from String, I get this error:
Inheritance from non-protocol, non-class type 'String'
Of course, I can instead use an extension to extend the existing String to add that function, but I felt that this will pollute the String with unnecessary and unrelated functions for general use.
For example, functions that I want to add might be like this:
class ImageUrl : String {
func getImage (callback: ((UIImage?)->Void)) { ... }
}
or like this:
class Base64 : String {
var image : UIImage { ... }
var data : Data { ... }
var string : String { ... }
}
Which will be confusing if I extend these functions to the main String type.
How can I do this in Swift? Or is there any workaround to this? Thanks.
You cannot inherit from String in Swift, because it is a struct. You can only add functionality by using an extension as you mentioned, but this will not let you use stored properties (computed properties as you wrote in the question are allowed).
However, a better approach for your need would be to use composition:
class Base64 {
let str: String
required init(value: String) {
self.str = value
}
}
Here you can add your desired functionality.
You could create a String extension using the fileprivate modifier to avoid polluting the global namespace. The functions would then only be available to code in the source file rather than the global namespace.
fileprivate extension String {
var image : UIImage { ... }
var data : Data { ... }
var string : String { ... }
}
I have a Swift protocol defined as follows:
protocol SmartContract {
func apply(transaction :Transaction)
func addBrokenRule(_ brokenRule: BrokenRule)
var brokenRules :[BrokenRule] { get set }
}
I have an extension on SmartContract defined as follows:
extension SmartContract {
mutating func addBrokenRule(_ brokenRule :BrokenRule) {
if self.brokenRules == nil {
self.brokenRules = [BrokenRule]()
}
self.brokenRules.append(brokenRule)
}
}
I also have a class MoneyTransferContract which conforms to the protocol but does not define brokenRules. This is because I have defined the brokenRules inside the extension.
class MoneyTransferContract : SmartContract {
func apply(transaction :Transaction) { // do something here }
}
My question is how can I make sure that MoneyTransformContract conforms to the SmartContract protocol. Is there anyway to have BrokenRule available to MoneyTransformContract without defining it again and again in different SmartContracts.
john doe wrote:
Is there anyway to have BrokenRule available to MoneyTransformContract without defining it again and again in different SmartContracts.
What you want is a superclass/subclass relationship for that behavior.
class SmartContract {
func apply(transaction :Transaction) {
//implemention
}
var brokenRules: [BrokenRule] = []
func addBrokenRule(_ brokenRule :BrokenRule) {
brokenRules.append(brokenRule)
}
}
class MoneyTransferContract : SmartContract {
// Gets `brokenRules` for free from superclass.
}
class BitCoinTransferContract : SmartContract {
// Gets `brokenRules` for free from superclass.
}
If I'm understanding correctly, there is no way to do what you want. (EDIT: as Jeff notes, if you want to use inheritance as opposed to a protocol, this is possible. See his answer for how). Protocols in Swift are just lists of requirements that it is up to implementing types to properly define. Protocols generally don't have any say over the actual behavior or implementation of implementing types, and only guarantees that the properties and functions exist. Your SmartContract protocol says that every SmartContract must have a function apply(transaction:), a function addBrokenRule(_:), and a property brokenRules which can be accessed and modified.
When a type implements SmartContract it has to define each one of these. Just as you have to write out the signature to tell the compiler that you are implementing apply(transaction:), you also have to tell the compiler how the property brokenRules will be implemented. You could obtain this functionality in a somewhat useless way, by defining an extension which has brokenRules as a computed property which is essentially a no-op:
extension SmartContract {
var brokenRules: [BrokenRule] {
get { return [] }
set(newRules) { }
}
}
But this means that any implementing type which forgets to specify their own implementation for brokenRules will have a brokenRules property which always resolves to an empty array.
One reason for this is Swift's computed properties. For some implementing type, it might not make sense for brokenRules to be stored as an array--and a protocol can't force that. That's an implementation detail that a protocol author can't (and shouldn't) worry about. For instance, if BrokenRules were easily convertible to and from strings, you could imagine some class which implemented SmartContract like so:
class StringContract: SmartContract {
var ruleString: String
var brokenRules: [BrokenRule] {
get {
let stringArray = ruleString.split(separator: ",")
return stringArray.map { BrokenRule(string:String($0)) }
}
set(newRules) {
let stringArray = newRules.map { $0.stringValue }
ruleString = stringArray.joined(separator: ",")
}
}
func apply(transaction: Transaction) {
// do something here...
}
init() {
ruleString = ""
}
}
Note that we don't have to specify an implementation for addBrokenRule(_:). That's what your protocol extension gets you. By providing an implementation in the extension, you ensure that all implementing types have a default implementation of the function, and so they can choose to forego defining their own.
Say I have a protocol:
protocol VehicleModel {...}
It is implemented by a number of different structs. (e.g. CarModel, TruckModel, etc.)
I have a generic method to get the vehicle's 'model identifier'.
func modelIdentifierForVehicle<V: VehicleModel>(vehicleType: V.Type) -> String {
return "\(vehicleType)"
}
If I call modelIdentifierForVehicle(CarModel.self) this returns "Car" just fine. But if I have a polymorphic collections of VehicleModel's and I try to call modelIdentifierForVehicle(model.dynamicType) on each of them, Xcode says "Cannot invoke 'modelIdentifierForVehicle' with argument list of type (VehicleModel.Type)" Why is this? And how can I work around it?
Since you're only converting vehicleType to a String in modelIdentifierForVehicle, I would argue why you need to use constrain V to VehicleModel, or even use generics at all:
func typeIdentifier(t: Any.Type) -> String {
return "\(t)"
}
let vehicles: [VehicleModel.Type] = [CarModel.self, TruckModel.self]
typeIdentifier(vehicles[0]) // CarModel
If there's a reason you need use a VehicleModel, assuming VehicleModel doesn't use Self or associated type requirements, you could do:
func modelIdentifierForVehicle(vehicleType: VehicleModel.Type) -> String {
return "\(vehicleType)"
}
If you're using Swift 2, you could instead use a protocol extension:
extension VehicleModel {
static var modelIdentifier: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType)"
}
}
// The array from earlier.
vehicles[1].modelIdentifier // TruckModel.Type
How do I specify multiple associated types in a protocol with added dependencies on their inner associated types? For example:
protocol CombinedType
{
typealias First: FirstType
typealias Second: SecondType
var first: First { get }
var second: Second { get }
}
protocol FirstType
{
typealias Value
var value: Value { get }
}
protocol SecondType
{
type alias Value
var value: Value { get }
}
I need to specify a limitation on the CombinedType protocol that would make it so FirstType.Value == SecondType.Value much like in a where clause in generics.
Without that limitation, the code:
func sum<Combined: CombinedType>(combined: Combined) -> Combined.FirstType.Value
{
return combined.first + combined.second
}
produces an error Combined.FirstType.Value is not compatible with Combined.SecondType.Value.
But if I explicitly add the where clause to the function, it compiles:
func sum<Combined: CombinedType where Combined.FirstType.Value == Combined.SecondType.Value>(combined: Combined) -> Combined.FirstType.Value
{
return combined.first + combined.second
}
The problem is that this where needs to be copied everywhere, which produces a ton of boilerplate and it gets even worse when using CombinedType inside another protocol, in which case the where clause gets larger and larger.
My question is: can I somehow include that limitation in the protocol itself?
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)
}