I have created a protocol:
public protocol MyProtocol {
func doTask()
}
Then, I have an array for elements with MyProtocol type:
var taskList: [MyProtocol] = []
Callers can add elements to taskList, eventually, I got an non-empty taskList.
Now, I need to have a function that could remove an element from taskList, this is what I tried:
func removeTask(task: MyProtocol) {
// Compiler error: Binary operator '!==' cannot be applied to two 'MyProtocol'
taskList = taskList.filter{$0 !== task}
}
But I get compiler error: Binary operator '!==' cannot be applied to two 'MyProtocol'
How to get rid of this error?
=== UPDATE ===
Thanks #holex, after changed MyProtocol to be class-only, it works fine. But now I wonder if I need MyProtocol to be not class-only, what would be the solution then?
You are using !== which is comparing references. You can't compare protocol directly using this operator, since MyProtocol can become a class or struct. Since the !== can only compare instances, you must explicitly declare that your protocol is a class.
Please change the MyProtocol to the following, which should fix your problem:
protocol MyProtocol: class { // AnyObject can be used here as well
func doTask()
}
Trying to accomplish this without class or AnyObject will not work with your current design. You might want to implement another comparison method.
Also note that you can try to use != which might be able to do the exact same thing you want. Using this way you don't have to declare class or AnyObject. So check if that works for you.
Consider the following code:
protocol JSONParserType {
associatedtype Element
}
// MARK: - Entities
struct Item {}
// MARK: - Parsers
struct OuterParser<T: JSONParserType where T.Element == Item>: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
let innerParser: T
init(innerParser: T = InnerParser()) {
self.innerParser = innerParser
}
}
struct InnerParser: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
}
The OuterParser has a child parser that should be constrained to a specific type. Unfortunately providing a default value in the initializer (or in the property definition itself) does lead to the compiler throwing a "Default argument value of type 'InnerParser' cannot be converted to type 'T'".
If I remove the default value assignment and just instantiate the OuterParser providing the InnerParser explicitly, everything is fine.
let outerParser = OuterParser(innerParser: InnerParser())
My question is what's the reason that the approach providing a default value that actually meets the constraints does not work.
The problem is that the actual type of T isn't defined by the class – it's defined by the code that uses the class. It will therefore be defined before you do anything in your class (at either instance or static level). You therefore can't assign InnerParser to T, as T has already been defined to be a given type by that point, which may well not be InnerParser.
For example, let's consider that you have another parser struct:
struct AnotherParser: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
}
and let's assume that your current code compiles. Now consider what would happen when you do this:
let parser = OuterParser<AnotherParser>()
You've defined the generic type to be AnotherParser – but the initialiser will try to assign InnerParser to your property (now of type AnotherParser). These types don't match, therefore it cannot possibly work.
Following the same logic, this implementation also won't work:
struct OuterParser<T: JSONParserType where T.Element == Item>: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
let innerParser: T
init() {
self.innerParser = InnerParser()
}
init(innerParser: T) {
self.innerParser = innerParser
}
}
As there's no guarantee that the generic type T will be the same type as InnerParser. Sure, you can force downcast to T – but that'll just make you code crash if the types aren't compatible.
Unfortunately, there's no real clean solution to this problem. I think the best your best option is probably to create two factory methods for creating your OuterParser instance.
enum Parser {
static func createParser() -> OuterParser<InnerParser> {
return OuterParser(innerParser:InnerParser())
}
static func createParser<T>(innerParser:T) -> OuterParser<T> {
return OuterParser(innerParser:innerParser)
}
}
let innerParser = Parser.createParser() // OuterParser<InnerParser>
let anotherParser = Parser.createParser(AnotherParser()) // OuterParser<AnotherParser>
We're using an caseless enum here to avoid polluting the global namespace with extra functions.
Although this isn't very Swifty, and for that reason I would also recommend maybe rethinking your logic for how you define your parsers.
type T more like a child protocol of JSONParserType you can convert it:
init(innerParser: T = InnerParser() as! T) {
self.innerParser = innerParser
}
Suppose for example we're talking about elements of type Int (but the question still applies to any type)
I have some functionality which needs to loop over a sequence of Ints. But I don't care if behind the scenes this sequence is implemented as an Array, or a Set or any other exotic kind of structure, the only requirement is that we can loop over them.
Swift standard library defines the protocol SequenceType as "A type that can be iterated with a for...in loop". So my instinct is to define a protocol like this:
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : SequenceType<Int> { get }
}
But this doesn't work. SequenceType is not a generic type which can be specialized, it's a protocol. Any particular SequenceType does have a specific type of element, but it's only available as an associated type: SequenceType.Generator.Element
So the question is:
How can we define a protocol which requires a specific type of sequence?
Here's some other things I've tried and why they aren't right:
Fail 1
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : SequenceType { get }
}
Protocol 'SequenceType' can only be used as a generic constraint
because it has Self or associated type requirements
Fail 2
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : AnySequence<Int> { get }
}
class ArrayOfInts : HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : [Int] = [0,1,2]
}
I thought this one would work, but when I tried a concrete implementation using an Array we get
Type 'ArrayOfInts' does not conform to protocol 'HasSequenceOfInts'
This is because Array is not AnySequence (to my surprise... my expectation was that AnySequence would match any sequence of Ints)
Fail 3
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
typealias S : SequenceType
var seq : S { get }
}
Compiles, but there's no obligation that the elements of the sequence seq have type Int
Fail 4
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : SequenceType where S.Generator.Element == Int
}
Can't use a where clause there
So now I'm totally out of ideas. I can easily just make my protocol require an Array of Int, but then I'm restricting the implementation for no good reason, and that feels very un-swift.
Update Success
See answer from #rob-napier which explains things very well. My Fail 2 was pretty close. Using AnySequence can work, but in your conforming class you need to make sure you convert from whatever kind of sequence you're using to AnySequence. For example:
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : AnySequence<Int> { get }
}
class ArrayOfInts : HasSequenceOfInts {
var _seq : [Int] = [0,1,2]
var seq : AnySequence<Int> {
get {
return AnySequence(self._seq)
}
}
}
There are two sides to this problem:
Accepting an arbitrary sequence of ints
Returning or storing an arbitrary sequence of ints
In the first case, the answer is to use generics. For example:
func iterateOverInts<SeqInt: SequenceType where SeqInt.Generator.Element == Int>(xs: SeqInt) {
for x in xs {
print(x)
}
}
In the second case, you need a type-eraser. A type-eraser is a wrapper that hides the actual type of some underlying implementation and presents only the interface. Swift has several of them in stdlib, mostly prefixed with the word Any. In this case you want AnySequence.
func doubles(xs: [Int]) -> AnySequence<Int> {
return AnySequence( xs.lazy.map { $0 * 2 } )
}
For more on AnySequence and type-erasers in general, see A Little Respect for AnySequence.
If you need it in protocol form (usually you don't; you just need to use a generic as in iterateOverInts), the type eraser is also the tool there:
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : AnySequence<Int> { get }
}
But seq must return AnySequence<Int>. It can't return [Int].
There is one more layer deeper you can take this, but sometimes it creates more trouble than it solves. You could define:
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
typealias SeqInt : IntegerType
var seq: SeqInt { get }
}
But now HasSequenceOfInts has a typealias with all the limitations that implies. SeqInt could be any kind of IntegerType (not just Int), so looks just like a constrained SequenceType, and will generally need its own type eraser. So occasionally this technique is useful, but in your specific case it just gets you basically back where you started. You can't constrain SeqInt to Int here. It has to be to a protocol (of course you could invent a protocol and make Int the only conforming type, but that doesn't change much).
BTW, regarding type-erasers, as you can probably see they're very mechanical. They're just a box that forwards to something else. That suggests that in the future the compiler will be able to auto-generate these type-erasers for us. The compiler has fixed other boxing problems for us over time. For instance, you used to have to create a Box class to hold enums that had generic associated values. Now that's done semi-automatically with indirect. We could imagine a similar mechanism being added to automatically create AnySequence when it's required by the compiler. So I don't think this is a deep "Swift's design doesn't allow it." I think it's just "the Swift compiler doesn't handle it yet."
(Tested and working in Swift 4, which introduces the associatedtype constraints needed for this)
Declare your original protocol that things will conform to:
protocol HasSequenceOfInts {
associatedType IntSequence : Sequence where IntSequence.Element == Int
var seq : IntSequence { get }
}
Now, you can just write
class ArrayOfInts : HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq : [Int] = [0,1,2]
}
like you always wanted.
However, if you try to make an array of type [HasSequenceOfInts], or assign it to a variable (or basically do anything with it), you'll get an error that says
Protocol 'HasSequenceOfInts' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Now comes the fun part.
We will create another protocol HasSequenceOfInts_ (feel free to choose a more descriptive name) which will not have associated type requirements, and will automatically be conformed to by HasSequenceOfInts:
protocol HasSequenceOfInts: HasSequenceOfInts_ {
associatedType IntSequence : Sequence where IntSequence.Element == Int
var seq : IntSequence { get }
}
protocol HasSequenceOfInts_ {
var seq : AnySequence<Int> { get }
}
extension HasSequenceOfInts_ where Self : HasSequenceOfInts {
var seq_ : AnySequence<Int> {
return AnySequence(seq)
}
}
Note that you never need to need to explicitly conform to HasSequenceOfInts_ , because HasSequenceOfInts already conforms to it, and you get a full implementation for free from the extension.
Now, if you need to make an array or assign an instance of something conforming to this protocol to a variable, use HasSequenceOfInts_ as the type instead of HasSequenceOfInts, and access the seq_ property (note: since function overloading is allowed, if you made a function seq() instead of an instance variable, you could give it the same name and it would work):
let a: HasSequenceOfInts_ = ArrayOfInts()
a.seq_
This needs a bit more setup than the accepted answer, but means you don't have to remember to wrap your return value in AnySequence(...) in every type where you implement the protocol.
I believe you need to drop the requirement for it to only be Int's and work around it with generics:
protocol HasSequence {
typealias S : SequenceType
var seq : S { get }
}
struct A : HasSequence {
var seq = [1, 2, 3]
}
struct B : HasSequence {
var seq : Set<String> = ["a", "b", "c"]
}
func printSum<T : HasSequence where T.S.Generator.Element == Int>(t : T) {
print(t.seq.reduce(0, combine: +))
}
printSum(A())
printSum(B()) // Error: B.S.Generator.Element != Int
In Swift's current state, you can't do exactly what you want, maybe in the future though.
it is very specific example on request of Daniel Howard
1) type conforming to SequenceType protocol could be almost any sequence, even though Array or Set are both conforming to SequenceType protocol, most of their functionality comes from inheritance on CollectionType (which conforms to SequenceType)
Daniel, try this simple example in your Playground
import Foundation
public struct RandomIntGenerator: GeneratorType, SequenceType {
public func next() -> Int? {
return random()
}
public func nextValue() -> Int {
return next()!
}
public func generate() -> RandomIntGenerator {
return self
}
}
let rs = RandomIntGenerator()
for r in rs {
print(r)
}
As you can see, it conforms to SequenceType protocol and produce infinite stream of Int numbers. Before you will try to implement something, you have to answer yourself few questions
can i reuse some functionality, which is available 'for free' in standard Swift library?
am i trying to mimic some functionality which is not supported by Swift? Swift is not C++, Swift is not ObjectiveC ... and lot of constructions we used to use before Swift has no equivalent in Swift.
Define your question in such way that we can understand you requirements
are you looking for something like this?
protocol P {
typealias Type: SequenceType
var value: Type { get set }
}
extension P {
func foo() {
for v in value {
dump(v)
}
}
}
struct S<T: CollectionType>: P {
typealias Type = T
var value: Type
}
var s = S(value: [Int]())
s.value.append(1)
s.value.append(2)
s.foo()
/*
- 1
- 2
*/
let set: Set<String> = ["alfa", "beta", "gama"]
let s2 = S(value: set)
s2.foo()
/*
- beta
- alfa
- gama
*/
// !!!! WARNING !!!
// this is NOT possible
s = s2
// error: cannot assign value of type 'S<Set<String>>' to type 'S<[Int]>' (aka 'S<Array<Int>>')
I'm trying to use Protocol-Oriented Pgrogramming for model layer in my application.
I've started with defining two protocols:
protocol ParseConvertible {
func toParseObject() -> PFObject?
}
protocol HealthKitInitializable {
init?(sample: HKSample)
}
And after implementing first model which conforms to both I've noticed that another model will be basically similar so I wanted to create protocol inheritance with new one:
protocol BasicModel: HealthKitInitializable, ParseConvertible {
var value: AnyObject { get set }
}
A you can see this protocol has one additional thing which is value but I want this value to be type independent... Right now I have models which use Double but who knows what may show up in future. If I leave this with AnyObject I'm sentenced to casting everything I want to use it and if I declare it as Double there's no sense in calling this BasicModel but rather BasicDoubleModel or similar.
Do you have some hints how to achieve this? Or maybe I'm trying to solve this the wrong way?
You probably want to define a protocol with an "associated type",
this is roughly similar to generic types.
From "Associated Types" in the Swift book:
When defining a protocol, it is sometimes useful to declare one or
more associated types as part of the protocol’s definition. An
associated type gives a placeholder name (or alias) to a type that is
used as part of the protocol. The actual type to use for that
associated type is not specified until the protocol is adopted.
Associated types are specified with the typealias keyword.
In your case:
protocol BasicModel: HealthKitInitializable, ParseConvertible {
typealias ValueType
var value: ValueType { get set }
}
Then classes with different types for the value property can
conform to the protocol:
class A : BasicModel {
var value : Int
func toParseObject() -> PFObject? { ... }
required init?(sample: HKSample) { ... }
}
class B : BasicModel {
var value : Double
func toParseObject() -> PFObject? { ... }
required init?(sample: HKSample) { ... }
}
For Swift 2.2/Xcode 7.3 and later, replace typealias in the
protocol definition by associatedtype.
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?