I have a var
var soketTasksList:Set<SocketTask> {
get { return socketManager.tasksList }
}
I don't need to set, only get,
but I need do something like this
soketTasksList.remove(task)
but compiler says
Cannot use mutating member on immutable value is a get-only property
I tried to add the keyword 'mutating' to the get, but this isn't working. I also
tried to add 'mutating' to the var, but this isn't working either.
UPD
i dont undestand why do I need set?
if i do
func getSoketTasksList() -> Set<CXSocketTask> {
return socketManager.tasksList
}
i can
getSoketTasksList().remove(task)
why not with var?
i don't need to set, only get
Yes, you do need to set.
i need do something like this soketTasksList.remove(task)
That is a mutation. Mutating a value type like Set requires the ability to set. But you have cut off that possibility by making this a read-only computed variable.
UPD i dont undestand why do I need set? if i do
func getSoketTasksList() -> Set<CXSocketTask> {
return socketManager.tasksList
}
i can
getSoketTasksList().remove(task)
No you can't. Try it. Here's a playground test:
class CXSocketTask:NSObject{}
class SocketManager {
var tasksList = Set<CXSocketTask>()
}
let task = CXSocketTask()
let socketManager = SocketManager()
socketManager.tasksList.insert(task)
func getSoketTasksList() -> Set<CXSocketTask> {
return socketManager.tasksList
}
getSoketTasksList().remove(task)
The last line generates an error: "cannot use mutating member on immutable value: 'getSoketTasksList' returns immutable value".
You can use temporary variable for this purpose:
var list = soketTasksList
list.remove(task)
Note that underlying list (socketManager.tasksList in this case) remains untouched.
The only situation in which you can do this is if the actual mutating is done through something which is settable.
For example:
struct Person {
var age: Int = 1
mutating func setAge(a: Int) -> Int {
age = a
return a
}
var computedAge: Int {
mutating get {
setAge(a: 4)
return age
}
}
}
var person = Person()
print(person.computedAge) //Prints 4
This is by design
Related
I feel like something is broken with the value semantics here. Consider:
struct A {
var b = 0
mutating func changeB() {
b = 6
}
}
struct B {
var arr = [A]()
func changeArr() {
/* as expected this won't compile
unlss changeArr() is mutating:
arr.append(A())
*/
// but this compiles! despite that changeB is mutating!
for var a in arr {
a.changeB()
}
}
}
Why can this example mutate the struct contents without marking the function as mutating? In true value semantics, any time you change any part of the value, the whole value should be considered changed, and this is usually the behavior in Swift, but in this example it is not. Further, adding a didSet observer to var arr reveals that changeArr is not considered mutation of the value.
for var a in arr {
a.changeB()
}
This is copying an element from arr out into a and leaving arr unchanged.
If you directly access the elements inside arr via their indexes, then it will mutate and require the mutating keyword.
The reason changeArr is not mutating is because it isn't really doing anything since it is working on local copies of the A objects. If you really want the method to do something meaningful it needs to be changed to
mutating func changeArrForReal() {
for index in arr.indices {
arr[index].changeB()
}
}
I am able to write mutating functions in structure but not in class.
struct Stack {
public private(set) var items = [Int]() // Empty items array
mutating func push(_ item: Int) {
items.append(item)
}
mutating func pop() -> Int? {
if !items.isEmpty {
return items.removeLast()
}
return nil
}
}
In swift, classes are reference type whereas structures and enumerations are value types. The properties of value types cannot be modified within its instance methods by default. In order to modify the properties of a value type, you have to use the mutating keyword in the instance method. With this keyword, your method can then have the ability to mutate the values of the properties and write it back to the original structure when the method implementation ends.
If you change the struct to a class, just delete the keyword mutating wherever it appears.
That's because classes are reference types, and structures are value types.
struct TestValue {
var a : Int = 42
mutating func change() { a = 1975 }
}
let val = TestValue()
val.a = 1710 // Forbidden because `val` is a `let` of a value type, so you can't mutate it
val.change() // Also forbidden for the same reason
class TestRef {
var a : Int = 42
func change() { a = 1975 }
}
let ref = TestRef()
ref.a = 1710 // Allowed because `ref` is a reference type, even if it's a `let`
ref.change() // Also allowed for the same reason
So on classes, you don't need to specify if a function is mutating or not, because, even when defined with let variables, you can modify instance...
That's why the mutating key word has no meaning on classes.
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
}
}
I have this question except for Swift. How do I use a Type variable in a generic?
I tried this:
func intType() -> Int.Type {
return Int.self
}
func test() {
var t = self.intType()
var arr = Array<t>() // Error: "'t' is not a type". Uh... yeah, it is.
}
This didn't work either:
var arr = Array<t.Type>() // Error: "'t' is not a type"
var arr = Array<t.self>() // Swift doesn't seem to even understand this syntax at all.
Is there a way to do this? I get the feeling that Swift just doesn't support it and is giving me somewhat ambiguous error messages.
Edit: Here's a more complex example where the problem can't be circumvented using a generic function header. Of course it doesn't make sense, but I have a sensible use for this kind of functionality somewhere in my code and would rather post a clean example instead of my actual code:
func someTypes() -> [Any.Type] {
var ret = [Any.Type]()
for (var i = 0; i<rand()%10; i++) {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(Int.self) }
else {ret.append(String.self) }
}
return ret
}
func test() {
var ts = self.someTypes()
for t in ts {
var arr = Array<t>()
}
}
Swift's static typing means the type of a variable must be known at compile time.
In the context of a generic function func foo<T>() { ... }, T looks like a variable, but its type is actually known at compile time based on where the function is called from. The behavior of Array<T>() depends on T, but this information is known at compile time.
When using protocols, Swift employs dynamic dispatch, so you can write Array<MyProtocol>(), and the array simply stores references to things which implement MyProtocol — so when you get something out of the array, you have access to all functions/variables/typealiases required by MyProtocol.
But if t is actually a variable of kind Any.Type, Array<t>() is meaningless since its type is actually not known at compile time. (Since Array is a generic struct, the compiler needs know which type to use as the generic parameter, but this is not possible.)
I would recommend watching some videos from WWDC this year:
Protocol-Oriented Programming in Swift
Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift
I found this slide particularly helpful for understanding protocols and dynamic dispatch:
There is a way and it's called generics. You could do something like that.
class func foo() {
test(Int.self)
}
class func test<T>(t: T.Type) {
var arr = Array<T>()
}
You will need to hint the compiler at the type you want to specialize the function with, one way or another. Another way is with return param (discarded in that case):
class func foo() {
let _:Int = test()
}
class func test<T>() -> T {
var arr = Array<T>()
}
And using generics on a class (or struct) you don't need the extra param:
class Whatever<T> {
var array = [T]() // another way to init the array.
}
let we = Whatever<Int>()
jtbandes' answer - that you can't use your current approach because Swift is statically typed - is correct.
However, if you're willing to create a whitelist of allowable types in your array, for example in an enum, you can dynamically initialize different types at runtime.
First, create an enum of allowable types:
enum Types {
case Int
case String
}
Create an Example class. Implement your someTypes() function to use these enum values. (You could easily transform a JSON array of strings into an array of this enum.)
class Example {
func someTypes() -> [Types] {
var ret = [Types]()
for _ in 1...rand()%10 {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(.Int) }
else {ret.append(.String) }
}
return ret
}
Now implement your test function, using switch to scope arr for each allowable type:
func test() {
let types = self.someTypes()
for type in types {
switch type {
case .Int:
var arr = [Int]()
arr += [4]
case .String:
var arr = [String]()
arr += ["hi"]
}
}
}
}
As you may know, you could alternatively declare arr as [Any] to mix types (the "heterogenous" case in jtbandes' answer):
var arr = [Any]()
for type in types {
switch type {
case .Int:
arr += [4]
case .String:
arr += ["hi"]
}
}
print(arr)
I would break it down with the things you already learned from the first answer. I took the liberty to refactor some code. Here it is:
func someTypes<T>(t: T.Type) -> [Any.Type] {
var ret = [Any.Type]()
for _ in 0..<rand()%10 {
if (rand()%2 == 0){ ret.append(T.self) }
else {
ret.append(String.self)
}
}
return ret
}
func makeArray<T>(t: T) -> [T] {
return [T]()
}
func test() {
let ts = someTypes(Int.self)
for t in ts {
print(t)
}
}
This is somewhat working but I believe the way of doing this is very unorthodox. Could you use reflection (mirroring) instead?
Its possible so long as you can provide "a hint" to the compiler about the type of... T. So in the example below one must use : String?.
func cast<T>(_ value: Any) -> T? {
return value as? T
}
let inputValue: Any = "this is a test"
let casted: String? = cast(inputValue)
print(casted) // Optional("this is a test")
print(type(of: casted)) // Optional<String>
Why Swift doesn't just allow us to let casted = cast<String>(inputValue) I'll never know.
One annoying scenerio is when your func has no return value. Then its not always straightford to provide the necessary "hint". Lets look at this example...
func asyncCast<T>(_ value: Any, completion: (T?) -> Void) {
completion(value as? T)
}
The following client code DOES NOT COMPILE. It gives a "Generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred" error.
let inputValue: Any = "this is a test"
asyncCast(inputValue) { casted in
print(casted)
print(type(of: casted))
}
But you can solve this by providing a "hint" to compiler as follows:
asyncCast(inputValue) { (casted: String?) in
print(casted) // Optional("this is a test")
print(type(of: casted)) // Optional<String>
}
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
}
}