I have this kind of code:
protocol MyProtocol {
}
class P1: MyProtocol {
}
class P2: MyProtocol {
}
class C <T: MyProtocol> {
}
Then i need to define a variable to delegate all kinds of C<MyProtocol>:
var obj: C <MyProtocol>
But compile error comes:
Using 'MyProtocol' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'MyProtocol' is not supported
How can I do?
This code:
class C <T: MyProtocol> { }
Means that C is a generic class that can specialize on any type T that conforms to MyProtocol.
When you declare:
var obj: C <MyProtocol>
You are (I think) trying to say that the var obj will be an instance of C specialized to some type that conforms to MyProtocol,but you can't specialize a generic class on a protocol type, because there is no such thing as a direct concrete instance of a protocol. There can only be instances of a type conforming to the protocol. And there can theoretically be many different types that conform to the protocol. So that notation doesn't really tell the compiler which specific specialization of C to use.
This shouldn't be a problem though, because you can write things like:
var obj: C<P1> = C<P1>()
or
var obj = C<P2>() // type is inferred
And within your class C you can still treat any uses of T as conforming to MyProtocol. So I think this should give you everything you need, as long as you remember that an instance of a generic class must be specialized to a single specific concrete type, not a protocol which could represent many possible concrete types.
You usually don't need to declare type for a Swift's variable. The compiler can infer type in most cases. Also, for generic class, you should let the compiler figure out what the generic classes resolve to:
class C<T: MyProtocol> {
var value: T
init (value: T) {
self.value = value
}
}
var obj = C(value: P1()) // type: C<P1>
// or:
var obj = C(value: P2()) // type: C<P2>
Related
This code fails to compile with Swift 5.1
import Foundation
protocol SomeClassProtocol: AnyObject {}
class SomeClass: SomeClassProtocol {}
class GenericClass<T:AnyObject> {
weak var t: T?
init(t: T) {
self.t = t
}
}
let test = GenericClass<SomeClassProtocol>(t: SomeClass())
The error is
'GenericClass' requires that 'SomeClassProtocol' be a class type
Does the compiler really need a class type here instead of a class-only protocol?
Yes. Though the syntax is the same (a colon), protocol inheritance is not the same thing as protocol conformance. Protocols do not conform to protocols; only types can conform to protocols. (AnyObject is not special in this regard; your question is good but the title isn't getting at the issue.)
In your example:
Your T needs to conform to AnyObject. SomeClassProtocol does not conform to AnyObject. But any types that conform to SomeClassProtocol will conform to AnyObject.
So you need to pick which of these you really want:
1.
let test = GenericClass( t: SomeClass() )
(test is a GenericClass<SomeClass>.)
2.
class Class {
weak var object: AnyObject?
init(object: AnyObject) {
self.object = object
}
}
Class( object: SomeClass() )
You do have the option of subclassing, if that would be useful.
class GenericClass<T: AnyObject>: Class {
var t: T? {
get { object as? T }
set { object = newValue }
}
}
Does the compiler really need a class type here instead of a class-only protocol?
Yes, it does. I think the problem is just understanding what this means:
class GenericClass<T:AnyObject>
That means: "To resolve GenericClass, the parameterized type T must be some type that is a class." Examples would be UIView, NSString, etc.
Okay, so:
let test = GenericClass<SomeClassProtocol>(t: SomeClass())
So, SomeClassProtocol is none of those; it isn't the name of a class. It's the name of a protocol.
A further difficulty may be understanding protocols as types. They are not really full-fledged types.
You don't need to specify T explicitly.
Change your code from this:
let test = GenericClass<SomeClassProtocol>(t: SomeClass())
To this:
let test = GenericClass(t: SomeClass())
I have a generic class of the form:
class BaseClass<T> {
var prop: T
...
}
I then have multiple subclasses of the form:
class SubClassOne: BaseClass<SomeSubClass> {
...
}
class SubClassTwo: BaseClass<SomeOtherSubClass> {
...
}
Where the type parameters SomeSubClass and SomeOtherSubClass both inherit from a common base class SomeBaseClass.
I now want to define a variable to store instances of both SubClassOne and SubClassTwo. I have tried many possibilities:
var obj: BaseClass
var obj: BaseClass<SomeBaseClass>
var obj: BaseClass<Any>
But the first attempt results in the error Reference to generic type 'BaseClass' requires arguments in <...>, and the other two result in the error Cannot assign value of type 'SubClassOne' to type ... when trying to assign a value. I even tried to trick the Swift compiler into inferring the type for me by initializing an array:
var testArray = [SubClassOne(), SubClassTwo()]
But even this failed, resulting in the error Heterogeneous collection literal could only be inferred to [Any]; add explicit type annotation if this is intentional. Indeed, the only type annotation that successfully allows storage of both SubClasses is Any or AnyObject. Is it possible to store these instances with a more specific type? If not, why?
The reason it's important to do so is that I ultimately want to get the property prop from the stored variable obj. I am unable to do so if obj is stored as Any. I am also unable to simply cast it to SubClassOne or SubClassTwo because the method itself where I am trying to access the properties is a generic method, and which of SubClassOne or SubClassTwo to cast to depends on the generic type parameter of the method:
func castObj<T>(asType: T.Type) {
(self.obj as? T).prop
}
Which would be called as: castObj(asType: SubClassOne.self) or castObj(asType: SubClassTwo.self). However, we run into the same problem: the only generic type parameter constraint I can define that accepts both SubClassOne and SubClassTwo is Any, and then the Swift compiler complains: Value of type 'T' has no member 'prop'.
As a workaround I tried to define a protocol that encapsulates the desired property:
protocol HasProp {
var prop: SomeBaseClass { get }
}
Then I added this to the declaration of SubClassOne and SubClassTwo. However this resulted in still another error: Type 'SubClassOne' does not conform to protocol 'HasProp'. This confuses me as well, since SubClassOne and SubClassTwo both inherit prop from BaseClass<SomeSubClass> and so actually do conform to the protocol.
In summary:
Is it possible to store instances of SubClassOne and SubClassTwo with a more specific type that gives access to properties of BaseClass? If not, why?
Why do the SubClasses not conform to the protocol as expected?
How can I change the design to attain my desired behavior?
The problem is that at the moment the function castObj has no type constraints for its generic parameter, T. By giving a type constraint of BaseClass you should be fine, since BaseClass has both properties.
func castObj<T: BaseClass>(asType: T.Type) {
(self.obj as? T).propOne
(self.obj as? T).propTwo
}
In your example, the type of propTwo was common to both subclasses and the type of propOne was specialized. Make your design reflect that.
[was]
class BaseClass<T,U> {
var propOne: T
var propTwo: U
...
}
class SubClassOne: BaseClass<SomeSubClass, SomeClass> {}
class SubClassTwo: BaseClass<SomeOtherSubClass, SomeClass> {}
[could be]
class BaseClass<U> {
var propTwo: U
...
}
class SubClassOne<T>: BaseClass<SomeClass> {
var propOne: T
...
}
class SubClassTwo<T>: BaseClass<SomeClass> {
var propOne: T
...
}
The point is to keep common things in the base class and compose your specializations.
There's a fundamental misconception that SubclassOne and SubclassTwo are in the same inheritance hierarchy. Because of the generic type, they inherit from different base classes. You cannot mix and match them.
Think about it. With inheritance you should be able to use any subclass anywhere where you have the base class, so in your test example:
var testArray = [SubClassOne(), SubClassTwo()]
What type would the right hand side of the following expressions have to be?
testArray[0].prop = something
And this one
testArray[1].prop = something;
In SubClassOne, the type of prop is SomeSubClass and in SubClassTwo the type of prop must be SomeOtherSubClass.
The only way for you to get this to work is for prop to be declared as SomeBaseClass and that removes the necessity for BaseClass to be generic.
Edit
Why doesn't the protocol work?
The problem with the protocol is that you define the property as having the type of the base class but it is read/write. A property in an implementation of the protocol cannot fulfill the contract with a property that is specialised to one of the subclasses because other bits of code need to be able to assign any instance of the base class to the property.
protocol MyProtocol
{
var prop: BaseClass
}
struct MyImplementation: MyProtocol
{
var prop: SubClass
}
class BaseClass {}
class SubClass: BaseClass {}
class DifferentSubClass: BaseClass {}
var instance: MyProtocol = MyImplementation()
instance.prop = DifferentSubClass()
// Should be legal because the protocol says so but the type of prop in instance is SubClass.
protocol A {}
protocol B {
var a: A { get }
}
struct StructA: A {}
struct StructB {
var a: StructA
}
extension StructB: B {}
This produces the error :
Type 'StructB' does not conform to protocol 'B'
The StructA already conform to protocol A, and StructB's property a return StructA type. That seems pretty a protocol B conformed type.
But why?
Xcode version 7.3 which Swift version is 2.2
To better illustrate the problem with your current code, let's say you have a StructC : A.
Your protocol B says that you can assign StructC to a (as it conforms to A) – but StructB says you cannot assign StructC to a StructA type. Therefore StructB doesn't conform to B.
The solution is either to change the type of a from StructA to A as Rahul says, or better yet, you could use generics.
The advantage of using generics is once you create your StructB with a given a – that property's type will be inferred by Swift, giving you better type safety. For example, once you assign a StructA to it, its type will then be StructA. If you assign a StructC to it, its type will be StructC.
To do this, we just have to add an associatedtype to protocol B. This will define a 'placeholder' type that we can then implement in a type that conforms to B. We can then define the generic type T in StructB that will provide the 'implementation' of AType – making sure it conforms to A. Therefore, we are now free to assign either StructA or StructC to a, without losing type safety.
protocol A {}
protocol B {
// new associated type to hold the type of "a" which conforms to A
associatedtype AType:A
var a: AType { get }
}
struct StructA: A {}
struct StructC:A {}
// define the new generic T which conforms to A
struct StructB<T:A> {
// define the type of a as the generic T, which conforms to A (and thus conforms with the protocol)
var a : T
}
extension StructB: B {}
let s = StructB(a: StructA())
s.a // "a" is now of type StructA
let s1 = StructB(a: StructC())
s1.a // "a" is now of type StructC
Because Swift is statically typed and does not depend on dynamic dispatch. You could do something like below.
import UIKit
protocol A {}
protocol B {
var a: A { get }
}
struct StructA: A {}
struct StructB {
var a: A = StructA()
}
extension StructB: B {}
I am reworking this code from swift 3.0.
extension WallPost: PFSubclassing {
static func parseClassName() -> String {
return "WallPost"
}
}
This generates the error:
Type 'WallPost' does not conform to protocol 'PFSubclassing'
Unavailable class method 'object()' was used to satisfy a requirement of protocol 'PFSubclassing'
Any idea of why this is happening and how I can resolve it? I wanted to fix this before updating to swift 4.0 / 5.0
Thanks so much for the help!
I'm attempting to apply a constrained protocol extension to a struct (Swift 2.0) and receiving the following compiler error:
type 'Self' constrained to non-protocol type 'Foo'
struct Foo: MyProtocol {
let myVar: String
init(myVar: String) {
self.myVar = myVar
}
}
protocol MyProtocol {
func bar()
}
extension MyProtocol where Self: Foo {
func bar() {
print(myVar)
}
}
let foo = Foo(myVar: "Hello, Protocol")
foo.bar()
I can fix this error by changing struct Foo to class Foo but I don't understand why this works. Why can't I do a where Self: constrained protocol a struct?
This is an expected behaviour considering struct are not meant to be inherited which : notation stands for.
The correct way to achieve what you described would be something like equality sign like:
extension MyProtocol where Self == Foo {
func bar() {
print(myVar)
}
}
But this doesn't compile for some stupid reason like:
Same-type requirement makes generic parameter Self non-generic
For what it's worth, you can achieve the same result with the following:
protocol FooProtocol {
var myVar: String { get }
}
struct Foo: FooProtocol, MyProtocol {
let myVar: String
}
protocol MyProtocol {}
extension MyProtocol where Self: FooProtocol {
func bar() {
print(myVar)
}
}
where FooProtocol is fake protocol which only Foo should extend.
Many third-party libraries that try to extend standard library's struct types (eg. Optional) makes use of workaround like the above.
I just ran into this problem too. Although I too would like a better understanding of why this is so, the Swift language reference (the guide says nothing about this) has the following from the Generic Parameters section:
Where Clauses
You can specify additional requirements on type parameters and their
associated types by including a where clause after the generic
parameter list. A where clause consists of the where keyword, followed
by a comma-separated list of one or more requirements.
The requirements in a where clause specify that a type parameter
inherits from a class or conforms to a protocol or protocol
composition. Although the where clause provides syntactic sugar for
expressing simple constraints on type parameters (for instance, T:
Comparable is equivalent to T where T: Comparable and so on), you can
use it to provide more complex constraints on type parameters and
their associated types. For instance, you can express the constraints
that a generic type T inherits from a class C and conforms to a
protocol P as <T where T: C, T: P>.
So 'Self' cannot be a struct or emum it seems, which is a shame. Presumably there is a language design reason for this. The compiler error message could certainly be clearer though.
As Foo is an existing type, you could simply extend it this way:
struct Foo { // <== remove MyProtocol
let myVar: String
init(myVar: String) {
self.myVar = myVar
}
}
// extending the type
extension Foo: MyProtocol {
func bar() {
print(myVar)
}
}
From The Swift Programming Language (Swift 2.2):
If you define an extension to add new functionality to an existing type, the new functionality will be available on all existing instances of that type, even if they were created before the extension was defined.
I'd like to implement a Swift method that takes in a certain class type, but only takes instances of those classes that comply to a specific protocol. For example, in Objective-C I have this method:
- (void)addFilter:(GPUImageOutput<GPUImageInput> *)newFilter;
where GPUImageOutput is a particular class, and GPUImageInput is a protocol. Only GPUImageOutput classes that comply to this protocol are acceptable inputs for this method.
However, the automatic Swift-generated version of the above is
func addFilter(newFilter: GPUImageOutput!)
This removes the requirement that GPUImageOutput classes comply with the GPUImageInput protocol, which will allow non-compliant objects to be passed in (and then crash at runtime). When I attempt to define this as GPUImageOutput<GPUImageInput>, the compiler throws an error of
Cannot specialize non-generic type 'GPUImageOutput'
How would I do such a class and protocol specialization in a parameter in Swift?
Is swift you must use generics, in this way:
Given these example declarations of protocol, main class and subclass:
protocol ExampleProtocol {
func printTest() // classes that implements this protocol must have this method
}
// an empty test class
class ATestClass
{
}
// a child class that implements the protocol
class ATestClassChild : ATestClass, ExampleProtocol
{
func printTest()
{
println("hello")
}
}
Now, you want to define a method that takes an input parameters of type ATestClass (or a child) that conforms to the protocol ExampleProtocol.
Write the method declaration like this:
func addFilter<T where T: ATestClass, T: ExampleProtocol>(newFilter: T)
{
println(newFilter)
}
Your method, redefined in swift, should be
func addFilter<T where T:GPUImageOutput, T:GPUImageInput>(newFilter:T!)
{
// ...
}
EDIT:
as your last comment, an example with generics on an Enum
enum OptionalValue<T> {
case None
case Some(T)
}
var possibleInteger: OptionalValue<Int> = .None
possibleInteger = .Some(100)
Specialized with protocol conformance:
enum OptionalValue<T where T:GPUImageOutput, T:GPUImageInput> {
case None
case Some(T)
}
EDIT^2:
you can use generics even with instance variables:
Let's say you have a class and an instance variable, you want that this instance variable takes only values of the type ATestClass and that conforms to ExampleProtocol
class GiveMeAGeneric<T: ATestClass where T: ExampleProtocol>
{
var aGenericVar : T?
}
Then instantiate it in this way:
var child = ATestClassChild()
let aGen = GiveMeAGeneric<ATestClassChild>()
aGen.aGenericVar = child
If child doesn't conform to the protocol ExampleProtocol, it won't compile
this method header from ObjC:
- (void)addFilter:(GPUImageOutput<GPUImageInput> *)newFilter { ... }
is identical to this header in Swift:
func addFilter<T: GPUImageOutput where T: GPUImageInput>(newFilter: T?) { ... }
both method will accept the same set of classes
which is based on GPUImageOutput class; and
conforms GPUImageInput protocol; and
the newFilter is optional, it can be nil;
From Swift 4 onwards you can do:
func addFilter(newFilter: GPUImageOutput & GPUImageInput)
Further reading:
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Protocols.html
http://braking.github.io/require-conformance-to-multiple-protocols/
Multiple Type Constraints in Swift