In this application there is the statement:
var instanceCount = { globalHappinessInstanceCount++ }()
In trying to understand the above statement I have found that, as far as I've tested, the statement below achieves the same result:
var instanceCount = globalHappinessInstanceCount++
Q1. What's the first statement achieving that the second doesn't?
Q2. Are the () braces following the closure expression signifying an empty tuple, initialiser syntax, ... or what? I.e how should one read the first statement?
Q1. What's the first statement achieving that the second doesn't?
AFAIK it just creates an unnecessary closure which doesn't add any value...
Q2. Are the () braces following the closure expression signifying an empty tuple, initialiser syntax, ... or what? I.e how should one read the first statement?
It is method call. Just like
let foo = { globalHappinessInstanceCount++ }
foo()
Update:
I just read the code in your link, in the context of class scope, it is different.
class HappinessViewController
{
var instanceCount = { globalHappinessInstanceCount++ }()
}
defines a property instanceCount: Int that get assigned value of globalHappinessInstanceCount++
It is not that much different than var instanceCount = globalHappinessInstanceCount++
However in Swift 3, ++ operator will be removed, which you may want to change it to globalHappinessInstanceCount += 1. But the issue is the result type of += operator is Void instead Int. So you have to write it like
class HappinessViewController
{
var instanceCount: Int = {
let instanceCount = globalInstanceCount
globalInstanceCount += 1
return instanceCount
}()
}
Related
I am going through the following tutorial on RxSwift:
http://adamborek.com/thinking-rxswift/
and having trouble understanding the following pattern:
searchBar.rx.text.orEmpty
------------> .flatMap { [spotifyClient] query in
return spotifyClient.rx.search(query: query)
}.map { tracks in
return tracks.map(TrackRenderable.init)
}
This square brackets input parameter: [spotifyClient] query seems very weird for me. I looked over official Apple documentation for closures and functions and I can not see any examples of such input parameters. In Objective C this would not bother me much, but it is Swift. Could anyone explain, what this parameter means here?
You will need to understand the variable capturing of closure idea.
Consider this example:
struct Calculator {
var a: Int
var b: Int
var sum: Int {
return a + b
}
}
Then you use this as:
let calculator = Calculator(a: 3, b: 5)
// You define a closure where you will use this calculator instance
let closure = {
// closure captures the variables that are declared prior to the declaration of the closure.
// your calculator instance is being captured here
// it's default variable capture
print("The result is \(calculator.sum)")
}
closure() // Prints "The result is 8"
Till now, everything is okay. You get what's expected.
Now consider you declare the calculator instance as var because in some point you need to mutate it's state. This is the case where complexity arises. Look:
var calculator = Calculator(a: 3, b: 5)
let closure = {
print("The result is \(calculator.sum)")
}
// You change the state of your calculator instance anytime before the closure gets executed
calculator.b = 20
// When the closure actually executes, you will be affected by any changes outside the closure
closure() // Prints "The result is 23"
So, the default variable capture isn't really helping you, instead it's creating problem in your case.
If you want to prevent this behaviour and print 8 even if the properties change after their capturing inside the closure, we can explicitly capture the variable with a capture list like this:
// [calculator] is your capture list
let closure = { [calculator] in
print("The result is \(calculator.sum)")
}
// change anything with calculator instance
calculator.b = 20
// execute the closure
closure() // Prints "The result is 8"
Capture List keeps immutable copy of the variable(s). Thanks to this copy, further changes to calculator, outside the closure, will not affect the closure.
You can capture multiple variables at once, hence it's called Capture List. Example:
let closure = { [variable1, variable2, variable3] in
print(variable1)
print(variable2)
print(variable3)
}
I recommend you read this article Capturing Values In Swift Closures.
Now, in your case spotifyClient is an instance of a class that may be responsible to make API calls. This instance may need some changes for calling different APIs. So, to prevent the affect of any changes to spotifyClient outside this closure you capture this instance in a Capture List.
Capture List vs. Parameter List:
You are confusing the parameter list with the capture list. The generic syntax is:
{ [capture list] (parameter list) in
...
...
}
Now take a look at the modified version of the above example:
let closure: (String)-> Void = { [calculator] stringParameter in // When using single parameter, you can always omit the () parentheses
print("\(stringParameter). The result is \(calculator.sum)")
}
// change anything with calculator instance
calculator.b = 20
// execute the closure
closure("Hey") // Prints "Hey. The result is 8"
I want to refactor this Swift code with a closure syntax
var station: Station!
var allStations = [Station]()
var favoriteStationIds = [Int]()
for favoriteStationId in favoriteStationIds {
for station in allStations {
if station.stationId == favoriteStationId {
station.isFavorite = true
continue
}
}
}
You can use forEach, which have a trailing closure syntax instead of normal for ... in loops.
Moreover, you don't need to manually iterate through both arrays, you can use index(where:), that accepts a closure to find the station with the specified id as favoriteStationId.
favoriteStationIds.forEach{ id in
allStations[allStations.index(where: {$0.stationId == id})!].isFavorite = true
}
Bear in mind that above piece of code assumes all elements in favoriteStationIds are valid ids that are present in allStations (if this is not the case, use optional binding for the index instead of force unwrapping).
I have the following code that attempts to consolidate redundant elements of an array:
var items : [String] = ["hello", "world", "!", "hello"]
var mutableSet = Set<String>()
items.reduce(mutableSet, combine: { (set: Set<String>, element: String) in
return set.insert(element)
})
set.insert(element) gives me the error Cannot use mutating member on immutable value: 'set' is a 'let' constant. What's wrong and how can I fix it?
The problem with the OP's code is that the accumulator in the reduce is immutable so it won't allow you to use the mutating function insert().
A tidy solution is to define an non-mutating equivalent to insert() called inserting() in an extension to Set as follows.
extension Set {
//returns a new set with the element inserted
func inserting(_ element: Element) -> Set<Element> {
var set = self
set.insert(element)
return set
}
}
Now we can write the reduce as follows
var items : [String] = ["hello", "world", "!", "hello"]
let set = items.reduce(Set<String>()){ accumulator, element in
accumulator.inserting(element)
}
In Swift, collections are value types. Value-typed variables declared with let (as implicitly are function parameters) cannot be modified. Additionally, your closure returns nothing, so reduce will probably not succeed.
I believe that reduce is not the best-suited tool for this task. Consider this for loop instead:
var set = Set<String>()
for element in items { set.insert(element) }
Another even simpler option would be to use the unionInPlace method:
var set = Set<String>()
set.unionInPlace(items)
Even better perhaps, create the set straight from the collection:
var set = Set<String>(items)
The 'set' value returned is a constant. This is important as it is the accumulator, which represents the values that have accumulated, thus far. It should not change in your closure.
Here is an example from a project I'm working on at the moment, where I want to find all of the unique performers, across many theatrical performances. Notice how I am using union, which does not modify the constant value 'performers', but instead consumes it to produce a new value.
let uniquePerformers = performances.reduce(Set<Performer>(), { (performers: Set<Performer>, performance) -> Set<Performer> in
return performers.union(Set(performance.performers))
})
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