I'm writing some debug code to which I need to pass a parameter of type Any. For printing purposes I'd like to unwrap the parameter value iff it's an optional, but I can't figure out how to test that - every syntactic form I can think of is rejected by the compiler. E.g.,
switch val {
case as Optional<Any>:
.
.
and a variety of let forms (including trying .dynamicType) aren't legitimate. Does anyone know how to actually do this? Overall, what I'm trying to accomplish is such that whether or not the value is an optional, I get the actual value into a string and not Optional.
Martin is absolutely correct. From the linked post, modified slightly because I wanted a different return for nil:
func unwrap(any:Any, ifNil: Any = "nil") -> Any {
let mi = Mirror(reflecting: any)
if mi.displayStyle != .Optional {
return any
}
if mi.children.count == 0 { return ifNil }
let (_, some) = mi.children.first!
return some
}
Related
We are working in a Swift project. A function was there like,
fun getSleepAmmount() -> Int {
// calculate sleep time
// return value when valid
// else
return -1
}
My team member prefers the above function where caller needs to check with -1 which is not I am comfortable with. My suggestion is to redesign with nil return (although callers still need to check nullability) like,
fun getSleepAmmount() -> Int? {
// calculate sleep time
// return value when valid
// else
return nil
}
But my colleagues do not want to redesign. Which version of the functions is cleaner and why?
Obviously, nil is much cleaner. Because of -1 means nothing. This is just a magic word. It is difficult to support, refactor and handle this case.
Returning nil is a better solution instead of using any garbage or default value.
Returning any default value may in future clash with the actual result.
Also, there might be other developers dealing with the same code. So, using nil will have a better explanation than using -1.
Second is the better as youll do
if let v = getSleepAmmount() {}
But with First
let v = getSleepAmmount()
if v > 0 {}
Returning nil means this isn't a valid return while -1 may mean another thing that will be miss-understood by a new developer that checks the code
If there is code in the caller that should only run if there is a valid sleep amount, then optionals is the better and clearer way to go. This is exactly what guard let and if let are designed for:
guard let sleepAmount = getSleepAmount() { else return }
// do something with sleepAmount
An even better way would be to throw an error inside the function:
func getSleepAmmount() throws -> Int {
// calculate sleep time
// return when valid
// else
throw InvalidSleepAmount
}
Then
do {
let sleepAmount = try getSleepAmount()
// do something with it
} catch InvalidSleepAmount {
// error processing
}
(If you want, your function could throw different errors so the caller gets to know why the sleep amount is invalid, SleepTooShort, SleepTooLong, NoSleep etc)
This is a best practices question, and I have a feeling I'm missing an obvious solution...
I was stumped why this bit of code made it past the if when wantsGroundAlways was false and I1 was undefined:
let i = c.data["I1"]?.integerValue
if !wantsGroundAlways && i == 0 { return }
The problem was that data["I1"] is, by definition, optional, so Swift inferred i as int?, and nil != 0. Subtle, but obvious in retrospect.
But what is the best way to deal with this common case? One solution is:
let i = (c.data["I1"] ?? 0).integerValue
But personally I think that looks terrible and hides the intent. Something along the lines of:
guard let i = c.data["I1"]?.integerValue else { i = 0 }
would make it obvious what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work because the i cannot be accessed in the else clause and { let i = 0 } is not the same i (try it, you'll see what I mean).
Now there is this:
guard let arcradius = c.data["F1"]?.doubleValue else { return }
which seems really close to what I want to do, but I'm not sure this is really what I think it means - will the return really fire if F1 is not in the dict? And what is the difference between that version and this:
guard case let arcradius = c.data["F1"]?.doubleValue else { return }
Which tells me it's always true?
I think I am missing something key here... so what do you all do in these situations?
I think this is the most straightforward and expressive way of solving your first question:
let i = c.data["I1"]?.integerValue ?? 0
It doesn't require brackets, and shows intent.
?? is the nil coalescence operator. It's a binary operator. If the left operand is not nil, it's returned, otherwise the right operand is returned.
c.data["I1"] can be nil (because there might be no value for the "I1" key). In such a case, c.data["I1"]?.integerValue will be nil. The ?? will then return the 0. If all goes well, and the left side isn't nil, it'll be returned, ignoring the 0.
If you want only to check if a key exist or not then a "type cast" to Int or Double is irrelevant.
Why not simply
guard c.data["I1"] == nil && !wantsGroundAlways else { return }
It passes the test if I1 is not in the dictionary and wantsGroundAlways is false.
if let or guard let is not needed either because according the condition the value for key is never used.
I would like to learn and use more functional programming in Swift. So, I've been trying various things in playground. I don't understand Reduce, though. The basic textbook examples work, but I can't get my head around this problem.
I have an array of strings called "toDoItems". I would like to get the longest string in this array. What is the best practice for handling the initial nil value in such cases? I think this probably happens often. I thought of writing a custom function and use it.
func optionalMax(maxSofar: Int?, newElement: Int) -> Int {
if let definiteMaxSofar = maxSofar {
return max(definiteMaxSofar, newElement)
}
return newElement
}
// Just testing - nums is an array of Ints. Works.
var maxValueOfInts = nums.reduce(0) { optionalMax($0, $1) }
// ERROR: cannot invoke 'reduce' with an argument list of type ‘(nil, (_,_)->_)'
var longestOfStrings = toDoItems.reduce(nil) { optionalMax(count($0), count($1)) }
It might just be that Swift does not automatically infer the type of your initial value. Try making it clear by explicitly declaring it:
var longestOfStrings = toDoItems.reduce(nil as Int?) { optionalMax($0, count($1)) }
By the way notice that I do not count on $0 (your accumulator) since it is not a String but an optional Int Int?
Generally to avoid confusion reading the code later, I explicitly label the accumulator as a and the element coming in from the serie as x:
var longestOfStrings = toDoItems.reduce(nil as Int?) { a, x in optionalMax(a, count(x)) }
This way should be clearer than $0 and $1 in code when the accumulator or the single element are used.
Hope this helps
Initialise it with an empty string "" rather than nil. Or you could even initialise it with the first element of the array, but an empty string seems better.
Second go at this after writing some wrong code, this will return the longest string if you are happy with an empty string being returned for an empty array:
toDoItems.reduce("") { count($0) > count($1) ? $0 : $1 }
Or if you want nil, use
toDoItems.reduce(nil as String?) { count($0!) > count($1) ? $0 : $1 }
The problem is that the compiler cannot infer the types you are using for your seed and accumulator closure if you seed with nil, and you also need to get the optional type correct when using the optional string as $0.
Let's say I have function which returns optional. nil if error and value if success:
func foo() -> Bar? { ... }
I can use following code to work with this function:
let fooResultOpt = foo()
if let fooResult = fooResultOpt {
// continue correct operations here
} else {
// handle error
}
However there are few problems with this approach for any non-trivial code:
Error handling performed in the end and it's easy to miss something. It's much better, when error handling code follows function call.
Correct operations code is indented by one level. If we have another function to call, we have to indent one more time.
With C one usually could write something like this:
Bar *fooResult = foo();
if (fooResult == null) {
// handle error and return
}
// continue correct operations here
I found two ways to achieve similar code style with Swift, but I don't like either.
let fooResultOpt = foo()
if fooResult == nil {
// handle error and return
}
// use fooResultOpt! from here
let fooResult = fooResultOpt! // or define another variable
If I'll write "!" everywhere, it just looks bad for my taste. I could introduce another variable, but that doesn't look good either. Ideally I would like to see the following:
if !let fooResult = foo() {
// handle error and return
}
// fooResult has Bar type and can be used in the top level
Did I miss something in the specification or is there some another way to write good looking Swift code?
Your assumptions are correct—there isn't a "negated if-let" syntax in Swift.
I suspect one reason for that might be grammar integrity. Throughout Swift (and commonly in other C-inspired languages), if you have a statement that can bind local symbols (i.e. name new variables and give them values) and that can have a block body (e.g. if, while, for), those bindings are scoped to said block. Letting a block statement bind symbols to its enclosing scope instead would be inconsistent.
It's still a reasonable thing to think about, though — I'd recommend filing a bug and seeing what Apple does about it.
This is what pattern matching is all about, and is the tool meant for this job:
let x: String? = "Yes"
switch x {
case .Some(let value):
println("I have a value: \(value)")
case .None:
println("I'm empty")
}
The if-let form is just a convenience for when you don't need both legs.
If what you are writing is a set of functions performing the same sequence of transformation, such as when processing a result returned by a REST call (check for response not nil, check status, check for app/server error, parse response, etc.), what I would do is create a pipeline that at each steps transforms the input data, and at the end returns either nil or a transformed result of a certain type.
I chose the >>> custom operator, that visually indicates the data flow, but of course feel free to choose your own:
infix operator >>> { associativity left }
func >>> <T, V> (params: T?, next: T -> V?) -> V? {
if let params = params {
return next(params)
}
return nil
}
The operator is a function that receives as input a value of a certain type, and a closure that transforms the value into a value of another type. If the value is not nil, the function invokes the closure, passing the value, and returns its return value. If the value is nil, then the operator returns nil.
An example is probably needed, so let's suppose I have an array of integers, and I want to perform the following operations in sequence:
sum all elements of the array
calculate the power of 2
divide by 5 and return the integer part and the remainder
sum the above 2 numbers together
These are the 4 functions:
func sumArray(array: [Int]?) -> Int? {
if let array = array {
return array.reduce(0, combine: +)
}
return nil
}
func powerOf2(num: Int?) -> Int? {
if let num = num {
return num * num
}
return nil
}
func module5(num: Int?) -> (Int, Int)? {
if let num = num {
return (num / 5, num % 5)
}
return nil
}
func sum(params: (num1: Int, num2: Int)?) -> Int? {
if let params = params {
return params.num1 + params.num2
}
return nil
}
and this is how I would use:
let res: Int? = [1, 2, 3] >>> sumArray >>> powerOf2 >>> module5 >>> sum
The result of this expression is either nil or a value of the type as defined in the last function of the pipeline, which in the above example is an Int.
If you need to do better error handling, you can define an enum like this:
enum Result<T> {
case Value(T)
case Error(MyErrorType)
}
and replace all optionals in the above functions with Result<T>, returning Result.Error() instead of nil.
I've found a way that looks better than alternatives, but it uses language features in unrecommended way.
Example using code from the question:
let fooResult: Bar! = foo();
if fooResult == nil {
// handle error and return
}
// continue correct operations here
fooResult might be used as normal variable and it's not needed to use "?" or "!" suffixes.
Apple documentation says:
Implicitly unwrapped optionals are useful when an optional’s value is confirmed to exist immediately after the optional is first defined and can definitely be assumed to exist at every point thereafter. The primary use of implicitly unwrapped optionals in Swift is during class initialization, as described in Unowned References and Implicitly Unwrapped Optional Properties.
How about the following:
func foo(i:Int) ->Int? {
switch i {
case 0: return 0
case 1: return 1
default: return nil
}
}
var error:Int {
println("Error")
return 99
}
for i in 0...2 {
var bob:Int = foo(i) ?? error
println("\(i) produces \(bob)")
}
Results in the following output:
0 produces 0
1 produces 1
Error
2 produces 99
I am trying with these lines of code
class Student {
var name: String
var age: Int?
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
func description() -> String {
return age != nil ? "\(name) is \(age) years old." : "\(name) hides his age."
}
}
var me = Student(name: "Daniel")
println(me.description())
me.age = 18
println(me.description())
Above code produces as follow
Daniel hides his age.
Daniel is Optional(18) years old.
My question is why there is Optional (18) there, how can I remove the optional and just printing
Daniel is 18 years old.
You have to understand what an Optional really is. Many Swift beginners think var age: Int? means that age is an Int which may or may not have a value. But it means that age is an Optional which may or may not hold an Int.
Inside your description() function you don't print the Int, but instead you print the Optional. If you want to print the Int you have to unwrap the Optional. You can use "optional binding" to unwrap an Optional:
if let a = age {
// a is an Int
}
If you are sure that the Optional holds an object, you can use "forced unwrapping":
let a = age!
Or in your example, since you already have a test for nil in the description function, you can just change it to:
func description() -> String {
return age != nil ? "\(name) is \(age!) years old." : "\(name) hides his age."
}
To remove it, there are three methods you could employ.
If you are absolutely sure of the type, you can use an exclamation mark to force unwrap it, like this:
// Here is an optional variable:
var age: Int?
// Here is how you would force unwrap it:
var unwrappedAge = age!
If you do force unwrap an optional and it is equal to nil, you may encounter this crash error:
This is not necessarily safe, so here's a method that might prevent crashing in case you are not certain of the type and value:
Methods 2 and three safeguard against this problem.
The Implicitly Unwrapped Optional
if let unwrappedAge = age {
// continue in here
}
Note that the unwrapped type is now Int, rather than Int?.
The guard statement
guard let unwrappedAge = age else {
// continue in here
}
From here, you can go ahead and use the unwrapped variable. Make sure only to force unwrap (with an !), if you are sure of the type of the variable.
Good luck with your project!
For testing/debugging purposes I often want to output optionals as strings without always having to test for nil values, so I created a custom operator.
I improved things even further after reading this answer in another question.
fileprivate protocol _Optional {
func unwrappedString() -> String
}
extension Optional: _Optional {
fileprivate func unwrappedString() -> String {
switch self {
case .some(let wrapped as _Optional): return wrapped.unwrappedString()
case .some(let wrapped): return String(describing: wrapped)
case .none: return String(describing: self)
}
}
}
postfix operator ~? { }
public postfix func ~? <X> (x: X?) -> String {
return x.unwrappedString
}
Obviously the operator (and its attributes) can be tweaked to your liking, or you could make it a function instead. Anyway, this enables you to write simple code like this:
var d: Double? = 12.34
print(d) // Optional(12.34)
print(d~?) // 12.34
d = nil
print(d~?) // nil
Integrating the other guy's protocol idea made it so this even works with nested optionals, which often occur when using optional chaining. For example:
let i: Int??? = 5
print(i) // Optional(Optional(Optional(5)))
print("i: \(i~?)") // i: 5
Update
Simply use me.age ?? "Unknown age!". It works in 3.0.2.
Old Answer
Without force unwrapping (no mach signal/crash if nil) another nice way of doing this would be:
(result["ip"] ?? "unavailable").description.
result["ip"] ?? "unavailable" should have work too, but it doesn't, not in 2.2 at least
Of course, replace "unavailable" with whatever suits you: "nil", "not found" etc
To unwrap optional use age! instead of age. Currently your are printing optional value that could be nil. Thats why it wrapped with Optional.
In swift Optional is something which can be nil in some cases. If you are 100% sure that a variable will have some value always and will not return nil the add ! with the variable to force unwrap it.
In other case if you are not much sure of value then add an if let block or guard to make sure that value exists otherwise it can result in a crash.
For if let block :
if let abc = any_variable {
// do anything you want with 'abc' variable no need to force unwrap now.
}
For guard statement :
guard is a conditional structure to return control if condition is not met.
I prefer to use guard over if let block in many situations as it allows us to return the function if a particular value does not exist.
Like when there is a function where a variable is integral to exist, we can check for it in guard statement and return of it does not exist.
i-e;
guard let abc = any_variable else { return }
We if variable exists the we can use 'abc' in the function outside guard scope.
age is optional type: Optional<Int> so if you compare it to nil it returns false every time if it has a value or if it hasn't. You need to unwrap the optional to get the value.
In your example you don't know is it contains any value so you can use this instead:
if let myAge = age {
// there is a value and it's currently undraped and is stored in a constant
}
else {
// no value
}
I did this to print the value of string (property) from another view controller.
ViewController.swift
var testString:NSString = "I am iOS Developer"
SecondViewController.swift
var obj:ViewController? = ViewController(nibName: "ViewController", bundle: nil)
print("The Value of String is \(obj!.testString)")
Result :
The Value of String is I am iOS Developer
Check out the guard statement:
for student in class {
guard let age = student.age else {
continue
}
// do something with age
}
When having a default value:
print("\(name) is \(age ?? 0) years old")
or when the name is optional:
print("\(name ?? "unknown") is \(age) years old")
I was getting the Optional("String") in my tableview cells.
The first answer is great. And helped me figure it out. Here is what I did, to help the rookies out there like me.
Since I am creating an array in my custom object, I know that it will always have items in the first position, so I can force unwrap it into another variable. Then use that variable to print, or in my case, set to the tableview cell text.
let description = workout.listOfStrings.first!
cell.textLabel?.text = description
Seems so simple now, but took me a while to figure out.
This is not the exact answer to this question, but one reason for this kind of issue.
In my case,
I was not able to remove Optional from a String with "if let" and "guard let".
So use AnyObject instead of Any to remove optional from a string in swift.
Please refer link for the answer.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/51356716/8334818
If you just want to get rid of strings like Optional(xxx) and instead get xxx or nil when you print some values somewhere (like logs), you can add the following extension to your code:
extension Optional {
var orNil: String {
if self == nil {
return "nil"
}
return "\(self!)"
}
}
Then the following code:
var x: Int?
print("x is \(x.orNil)")
x = 10
print("x is \(x.orNil)")
will give you:
x is nil
x is 10
PS. Property naming (orNil) is obviously not the best, but I can't come up with something more clear.
With the following code you can print it or print some default value. That's what XCode generally recommend I think
var someString: String?
print("Some string is \(someString ?? String("Some default"))")
If you are printing some optional which is not directly printable but has a 'to-printable' type method, such as UUID, you can do something like this:
print("value is: \(myOptionalUUID?.uuidString ?? "nil")")
eg
let uuid1 : UUID? = nil
let uuid2 : UUID? = UUID.init()
print("uuid1: \(uuid1?.uuidString ?? "nil")")
print("uuid2: \(uuid2?.uuidString ?? "nil")")
-->
uuid1: nil
uuid2: 0576137D-C6E6-4804-848E-7B4011B40C11