I would like to do something similar to the following with an NSObject subclass
class Thing: NSObject {
class func defaultText() -> String { ... }
let text: String
init(text: String?) {
self.text = text ?? self.dynamicType.defaultText() // Of course, this line won't compile
super.init()
}
}
so that Thing subclasses may override defaultText() without requiring them to override the initializer. This is easy to do with a mutable stored property, but it would be nice to have it constant. Is there a way to do this?
This is a separate issue than overriding static vars in subclasses swift 1.2 . There is no desire to override a constant or a static method. The only thing in question is, in the initializer where the constant is set, is there a way to compute a value based on the specific class that is being initialized?
Related
I am taking an online class on swift and an example was shown. Why is self used with the init method call but not on colour?
class Car {
var colour = "Black"
var numberOfSeats = 5
var typeOfCar : CarType = .Coupe
init() {
}
convenience init (customerChosenColour : String) {
self.init()
colour = customerChosenColour
}
}
An init() runs when someone makes a new instance of that class like this:
var newInstanceOfCar = Car()
A convenience init allows you to create other initializers for certain use cases, like when there is a customerChosenColour that needs to be specified. It makes things more convenient in those cases.
The reason why self is used, is because when you create convenience init, you still need to call the "main" init, which is a property of self.
You can use self on colour, but it isn't necessary. You would use self.colour, if colour was ambiguous, like in this example:
class Car {
var colour = "Black"
var numberOfSeats = 5
var typeOfCar : CarType = .Coupe
init() {
}
convenience init (colour : String) {
self.init()
self.colour = colour
}
}
Notice how colour is a property of Car, but is also the name of the parameter for the convenience init. It would be confusing to write colour = colour.
So we use self to say that we want the variable in our class, self.colour, to be equal to the value of the parameter, colour.
As you wonder why self. cannot be omitted in self.init(), you can think of self.init() as whole is a special keyword just for convenience initializer. Same as super.init() as whole is a special keyword just for designated initializer. And Car.init()aka Car() is for creating a new instance. Calling init() itself without any receiver is not a valid call ever. So you can treat function call init() as nonexistence, self.init() is one keyword, super.init() is another keyword.
init() is not a member function, it is the initializer, some special code which will be run when creating new instances of that class. Don't treat initializers as regular member functions. They don't have the func keyword in front. They don't have the property of member functions. You can call member function on an instance but you cannot call initializer on an instance (Car().init() is not valid). self.init() dose NOT mean calling a function named init() from self.
class Foo
{
init(){}
func foo(){}
func bar()
{
self.foo() //valid. regular member function call
self.init() //invalid. init() is not a member function of the instance
}
}
Don't think self.init() like calling regular method from the same class, where self. can be omitted, but rather treat the whole thing as a special keyword that means "initialize this object with the designated initializer first".
If I declare
public class A: NSObject {
public class X { }
public init?(x: X? = nil) { }
}
all is fine. When using it like let a = A(), the initializer is called as expected.
Now, I'd like to have the nested class X private, and the parameterized init as well (has to be, of course). But a simple init?() should stay publicly available as it was before. So I write
public class B: NSObject {
private class X { }
private init?(x: X?) { }
public convenience override init?() { self.init(x: nil) }
}
But this gives an error with the init?() initializer: failable initializer 'init()' cannot override a non-failable initializer with the overridden initializer being the public init() in NSObject.
How comes I can effectively declare an initializer A.init?() without the conflict but not B.init?()?
Bonus question: Why am I not allowed to override a non-failable initializer with a failable one? The opposite is legal: I can override a failable initializer with a non-failable, which requires using a forced super.init()! and thus introduces the risk of a runtime error. To me, letting the subclass have the failable initializer feels more sensible since an extension of functionality introduces more chance of failure. But maybe I am missing something here – explanation greatly appreciated.
This is how I solved the problem for me:
I can declare
public convenience init?(_: Void) { self.init(x: nil) }
and use it like
let b = B(())
or even
let b = B()
— which is logical since its signature is (kind of) different, so no overriding here. Only using a Void parameter and omitting it in the call feels a bit strange… But the end justifies the means, I suppose. :-)
After a bit of fiddling I think I understand. Let's consider a protocol requiring this initializer and a class implementing it:
protocol I {
init()
}
class A : I {
init() {}
}
This gives the error: "Initializer requirement 'init()' can only be satisfied by a required initializer in non-final class 'A'". This makes sense, as you could always declare a subclass of A that doesn't inherit that initializer:
class B : A {
// init() is not inherited
init(n: Int) {}
}
So we need to make our initializer in A required:
class A : I {
required init() {}
}
Now if we look at the NSObject interface we can see that the initializer is not required:
public class NSObject : NSObjectProtocol {
[...]
public init()
[...]
}
We can confirm this by subclassing it, adding a different initializer and trying to use the normal one:
class MyObject : NSObject {
init(n: Int) {}
}
MyObject() // Error: Missing argument for parameter 'n:' in call
Now here comes the weird thing: We can extend NSObject to conform to the I protocol, even though it doesn't require this initializer:
extension NSObject : I {} // No error (!)
I honestly think this is either a bug or a requirement for ObjC interop to work (EDIT: It's a bug and already fixed in the latest version). This error shouldn't be possible:
extension I {
static func get() -> Self { return Self() }
}
MyObject.get()
// Runtime error: use of unimplemented initializer 'init()' for class '__lldb_expr_248.MyObject'
Now to answer your actual question:
In your second code sample, the compiler is right in that you cannot override a non-failable with a failable initializer.
In the first one, you aren't actually overriding the initializer (no override keyword either), but instead declaring a new one by which the other one can't be inherited.
Now that I wrote this much I'm not even sure what the first part of my answer has to do with your question, but it's nice to find a bug anyways.
I suggest you to do this instead:
public convenience override init() { self.init(x: nil)! }
Also have a look at the Initialization section of the Swift reference.
I want to use a strategy pattern to register a set of objects that implement a protocol. When I set this up, I get a compile error when trying to set the delegate that is part of the protocol.
For discussion purposes, I have slightly reworked the DiceGame from the Swift eBook's Delegation chapter. The changes of significance are:
protocol DiceGame - declares a delegate
class SnakesAndLadders implements DiceGame (and therefore the protocol and delegate)
class Games holds 3 instances of SnakesAndLadders as
1) a concrete class of SnakesAndLadders
2) a 'let' constant of protocol DiceGame
3) a 'var' variable of protocol DiceGame
We can set the delegate fine if we use the concrete class (snakesAndLadders). However, there is a compile error if we use 'let' to hold it as a protocol (diceGameAsLet) but it compiles if we hold the variable as a 'var' (diceGameAsVar).
It is easy to work around, however, the delegate itself never changes so should be held as a 'let' constant, as it is only the internal property that changes. I must not understand something (possibly subtle but significant) about protocols and how they work and should be used.
class Dice
{
func roll() -> Int
{
return 7 // always win :)
}
}
protocol DiceGame
{
// all DiceGames must work with a DiceGameDelegate
var delegate:DiceGameDelegate? {get set}
var dice: Dice {get}
func play()
}
protocol DiceGameDelegate
{
func gameDidStart( game:DiceGame )
func gameDidEnd( game:DiceGame )
}
class SnakesAndLadders:DiceGame
{
var delegate:DiceGameDelegate?
let dice = Dice()
func play()
{
delegate?.gameDidStart(self)
playGame()
delegate?.gameDidEnd(self)
}
private func playGame()
{
print("Playing the game here...")
}
}
class Games : DiceGameDelegate
{
let snakesAndLadders = SnakesAndLadders()
// hold the protocol, not the class
let diceGameAsLet:DiceGame = SnakesAndLadders()
var diceGameAsVar:DiceGame = SnakesAndLadders()
func setupDelegateAsClass()
{
// can assign the delegate if using the class
snakesAndLadders.delegate = self
}
func setupDelegateAsVar()
{
// if we use 'var' we can assign the delegate
diceGameAsVar.delegate = self
}
func setupDelegateAsLet()
{
// DOES NOT COMPILE - Why?
//
// We are not changing the dice game so want to use 'let', but it won't compile
// we are changing the delegate, which is declared as 'var' inside the protocol
diceGameAsLet.delegate = self
}
// MARK: - DiceGameDelegate
func gameDidStart( game:DiceGame )
{
print("Game Started")
}
func gameDidEnd( game:DiceGame )
{
print("Game Ended")
}
}
DiceGame is a heterogeneous protocol that you're using as a type; Swift will treat this type as a value type, and hence (just as for a structures), changing its mutable properties will mutate also the instance of the protocol type itself.
If you, however, add the : class keyword to the DiceGame protocol, Swift will treat it as a reference type, allowing you to mutate members of instances of it, without mutating the instance itself. Note that this will constraint the protocol as conformable to only by class types.
protocol DiceGame: class { ... }
With the addition of the above, the mutation of immutable diceGameAsLet:s properties will be allowed.
In this context, it's worth mentioning that the : class keyword is usually used to constrain protocols used as delegates (e.g., DiceGameDelegate in your example) as conformable to only by class types. With this additional constraint, the delegates can be used as types to which the delegate owner (e.g. some class) only hold a weak reference, useful in contexts where a strong reference to the delegate could create a retain cycle.
See e.g. the 2nd part of this answer for details.
The issue is that when you store something as a Protocol, even if it is a class, swift considers them to be a value type, instead of the reference type you are expecting them to be. Therefore, no part of it is allowed to be changed. Take a look at this reference for more information.
I have read the Swift docs and searched here, but I still am not sure about how to implement a class hierarchy where each subclass sets custom value for an inherited static property; that is:
Base class defines a static property: all instances share the same value.
Subclass overrides the static property: all instances share the same value, which is different form that of the base class.
Can the property be stored?
Also, How should I access the value of the property from within an instance method (regardless of the particular class), and get the correct value everytime? will the following code work?
class BaseClass
{
// To be overridden by subclasses:
static var myStaticProperty = "Hello"
func useTheStaticProperty()
{
// Should yield the value of the overridden property
// when executed on instances of a subclass:
let propertyValue = self.dynamicType.myStaticProperty
// (do something with the value)
}
You are so close to being there, except that you can't override a static property in a subclass — that is what it means to be static. So you'd have to use a class property, and that means it will have to be a computed property — Swift lacks stored class properties.
So:
class ClassA {
class var thing : String {return "A"}
func doYourThing() {
print(type(of:self).thing)
}
}
class ClassB : ClassA {
override class var thing : String {return "B"}
}
And let's test it:
ClassA().doYourThing() // A
ClassB().doYourThing() // B
I am trying to understand the use of the required keyword in Swift classes.
class SomeClass
{
required init() {
// initializer implementation goes here
}
}
required doesn't force me to implement the method in my child-class. If I want to override the required designated initializer of my parent class I need to write required and not override. I know how it works but can not understand why I should do this.
What is the benefit of required?
As far as I can tell, languages like C# don't have something like this and work just fine with override.
It's actually just a way of satisfying the compiler to assure it that if this class were to have any subclasses, they would inherit or implement this same initializer. There is doubt on this point, because of the rule that if a subclass has a designated initializer of its own, no initializers from the superclass are inherited. Thus it is possible for a superclass to have an initializer and the subclass not to have it. required overcomes that possibility.
One situation where the compiler needs to be satisfied in this way involves protocols, and works like this:
protocol Flier {
init()
}
class Bird: Flier {
init() {} // compile error
}
The problem is that if Bird had a subclass, that subclass would have to implement or inherit init, and you have not guaranteed that. Marking Bird's init as required does guarantee it.
Alternatively, you could mark Bird as final, thus guaranteeing the converse, namely that it will never have a subclass.
Another situation is where you have a factory method that can make a class or its subclass by calling the same initializer:
class Dog {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
class NoisyDog: Dog {
}
func dogMakerAndNamer(whattype: Dog.Type) -> Dog {
let d = whattype.init(name: "Fido") // compile error
return d
}
dogMakerAndNamer is calling the init(name:) initializer on Dog or a Dog subclass. But how can the compiler be sure that a subclass will have an init(name:) initializer? The required designation calms the compiler's fears.
According to the documentation:
Write the required modifier before the definition of a class initializer to
indicate that every subclass of the class must implement that initializer
So yes, required does force all child classes to implement this constructor. However, this is not needed
if you can satisfy the requirement with an inherited initializer.
So if you have created more complex classes that cannot be fully initialized with a parent constructor, you must implement the require constructor.
Example from documentation (with some added stuff):
class SomeClass {
required init() {
// initializer implementation goes here
}
}
class SomeSubclass: SomeClass {
let thisNeedsToBeInitialized: String
required init() {
// subclass implementation of the required initializer goes here
self.thisNeedsToBeInitialized = "default value"
}
}
I want to draw an attention on another solution provided by Required, apart from Matt has given above.
class superClass{
var name: String
required init(){
// initializer implementation goes here
self.name = "Untitled"
}
}
class subClass: superClass {
var neakName: String = "Subclass Untitled"
}
let instanceSubClass = subClass()
instanceSubClass.name //output: "Untitled"
instanceSubClass.neakName //output: "Subclass Untitled"
As you can check in above example, I've declared required init() on superClass, init() initializer of superClass has inherited by default on subClass, So you able to create an instance of subClass let instanceSubClass = subClass().
But, suppose you want to to add one designated initializer on subClass to assign run time value to stored property neakName. Of course you can add it, but that will result to no initializers from the superClass will be inherited to subClass, So if you will create an instance of subClass you will create through its own designated initializer as below.
class superClass{
var name: String
init(){
// initializer implementation goes here
self.name = "Untitled"
}
}
class subClass: superClass {
var neakName: String = "Subclass Untitled"
init(neakName: String) {
self.neakName = neakName
}
}
let instanceSubClass = subClass(neakName: "Bobby")
instanceSubClass.name //output: "Untitled"
instanceSubClass.neakName //output: "Bobby"
Here above, you won't be able to create an instance of subClass by just subClass(), But if you want that every subclasses of superClass must have their own init() initializer to create direct instance by subClass(). Just place required keyword before init() on superClass, it will force you to add init() initializer on subClass too - as below.
class superClass{
var name: String
required init(){
// initializer implementation goes here
self.name = "Untitled"
}
}
class subClass: superClass {
var neakName: String = "Subclass Untitled"
init(neakName: String) {
self.neakName = neakName
}
} // Compiler error <------------ required `init()` must be provided by subClass.
let instanceSubClass = subClass(neakName: "Bobby")
instanceSubClass.name //output: "Untitled"
instanceSubClass.neakName //output: "Bobby"
SO, use required keyword before initializer on superclass, when you want all subclasses must have been implemented required initializer of superclass.
If you are trying to add you own initialiser in the sub class, then you have to follow certain things those were declared in super class. So it make sure that you will not forget to implement that required method. If you forget compiler will give you error // fatal error, we've not included the required init()
. Another reason is it creates a set of conditions that ever sub class should follow it the sub class is defining its own initialiser.