For working with complex numbers, this is how I've been doing it:
import Foundation
class Complex {
var real: Float
var imaginary: Float
init(re: Float, im: Float) {
self.imaginary = im
self.real = re
}
func abs() -> Float {
return sqrtf(powf(self.real, 2) + powf(self.imaginary, 2))
}
func string() -> String {
if (ceilf(self.real) == self.real) && (ceilf(self.imaginary) == self.imaginary){
return "\(Int(self.real))+\(Int(self.imaginary))i"
}
return "\(self.real)+\(self.imaginary)i"
}
func arg() -> Float {
return atan2f(self.imaginary, self.real)
}
}
var someComplex = Complex(re: 2, im: 3)
var someComplexString = someComplex.string() //"2+3i"
var someComplexAbsolute = someComplex.abs() // 3.60...
var someComplexArgument = someComplex.arg() //0.98...
Now I was wondering, if there was any way to define a custom type of variable that would let me write it as someComplex: Complex = 3i for example. Is it possible to create a new type "from the ground up"?
I'm slightly uncertain if this is what you're looking for, but based on your comment to the other answer
"Thanks, but what I meant was something like a custom type that would accept all floats and i for example",
you could create a wrapper that holds a single generic value, where the generic type of this value is type constrained to some protocol, to which you in turn extend the types you wish to be wrappable but the type. E.g., below allowing types Int, Float and String to be wrapped by the wrapper
protocol MyGenericTypes { }
extension Int: MyGenericTypes { }
extension Float: MyGenericTypes { }
extension String: MyGenericTypes { }
struct SomeWrapper<T: MyGenericTypes> {
var value: T
init(_ value: T) {
self.value = value
}
}
let myInt = 42
let myFloat: Float = 4.2
let myString = "forty-two"
let wrappedInt = SomeWrapper(myInt) // T inferred as "Int"
let wrappedFloat = SomeWrapper(myFloat) // T inferred as "Float"
let wrappedString = SomeWrapper(myString) // T ingerred as "String"
print(wrappedInt.dynamicType) // SomeWrapper<Int>
print(wrappedFloat.dynamicType) // SomeWrapper<Float>
print(wrappedString.dynamicType) // SomeWrapper<String>
You can naturally write generic functions allowing arguments for SomeWrapper<T> instances, type constraining T in the same fashion as in the struct definition above
func foo<T: MyGenericTypes>(bar: SomeWrapper<T>) -> () {
print(bar.value)
}
foo(wrappedInt) // 4.2
foo(wrappedFloat) // 42
foo(wrappedString) // forty-two
Related
I have code like this:
class A{}
class B: A{
var val = 1
}
class C: A{
var num = 5
}
extension Optional where Wrapped == [B?]{
var vals: [B]{
var result = [B]()
if let arr = self{
for part in arr{
if let val = part{
result.append(val)
}
}
}
return result
}
}
extension Optional where Wrapped == [C?]{
var vals: [C]{
var result = [C]()
if let arr = self{
for part in arr{
if let val = part{
result.append(val)
}
}
}
return result
}
}
var one: [B?]? = [B()]
var two: [C?]? = [C(), nil]
print(one.vals.count)
print(two.vals.count)
Here is the optimized one:
Combined into one, for B ( A's subclass ) & C ( A's subclass )
extension Optional where Wrapped: Collection{
var vals: [A]{
var result = [A]()
if let arr = self{
for part in arr{
if let val = part as? A{
result.append(val)
}
}
}
return result
}
}
Now question comes,
for case like the follwing,
how to go on the optimization?
print(one.vals.first?.val ?? "")
print(two.vals.first?.num ?? "")
I guess, I need a function to return an object's real type
PS: I know , to handle data , struct is perfect with protocol
While it's a company project, & I'm a new one
You need to introduce an extra type variable to say that the extension works on Optionals where Wrapped.Element is another Optional of any type. You have to express the "any type" part with another type variable, but you cannot add this type variable in the extension's declaration (though this feature is being proposed), or the property's declaration. What you can do instead, is to make vals a function:
func vals<T>() -> [T] where Wrapped.Element == T? {
var result = [T]()
if let arr = self{
for part in arr{
if let val = part{
result.append(val)
}
}
}
return result
}
Note that this can be simplified to:
extension Optional where Wrapped: Sequence {
func vals<T>() -> [T] where Wrapped.Element == T? {
self?.compactMap { $0 } ?? []
}
}
Just for fun. Another possible approach to keep it as a computed property instead of a generic method is to create an AnyOptional protocol with an associatedtype Wrapped and conform Optional to it. Then you can create a computed property to return an array of its Wrapped Element Wrapped type:
protocol AnyOptional {
associatedtype Wrapped
var optional: Optional<Wrapped> { get }
}
extension Optional: AnyOptional {
var optional: Optional<Wrapped> { self }
}
extension AnyOptional where Wrapped: Sequence, Wrapped.Element: AnyOptional {
var elements: [Wrapped.Element.Wrapped] {
optional?.compactMap(\.optional) ?? []
}
}
print(one.elements) // "[B]\n"
print(two.elements) // "[C]\n"
print(one.elements.first?.val ?? "") // "1\n"
print(two.elements.first?.num ?? "") // "5\n"
I have a protocol FooProtocol. and a class Bar<Foo:FooProtocol>. Inside a class an Array var mess: [Foo?]? to keep [foo1, foo2, nil, foo3...] or nil
And I try to make extension for this array to count new Foo object. I prefer to have protocols, because Foos could be very different objects delivered from outer world.
protocol FooProtocol {
....
init(from heaven: Int)
}
extension Optional where
Wrapped: Collection,
Wrapped.Element == Optional,
Wrapped.Element.Wrapped: FooProtocol // 'Wrapped' is not a member type of 'Wrapped.Element'
{
var united: Wrapped.Element.Wrapped { // Nope
let i = ...
return Wrapped.Element.Wrapped(from: i) // Nope
}
}
class Bar<Foo:FooProtocol> {
var mess: [Foo?]?
init (with mess: [Foo?]?) {
self.mess = mess
}
var important: Foo {
return mess.united
}
}
Any ideas? I'm blocked.
Edit 1:
After Leo suggestions I changed some parts of my code. But still stucked. This time more code from Playgrounds.
Any object that could be converted into '[Double]'. Could be color (as RGBA), Bezier curve, square, whatever...
public protocol FooProtocol {
var atomized: () -> [Double] {get}
static var count: Int {get}
init(_ array:[Double])
init()
}
public extension Array where Element: FooProtocol {
var average: Element {
var resultAtoms: [Double] = []
let inputAtoms = self.map {$0.atomized()}
for i in 0..<Element.count {
let s = inputAtoms.reduce(into: 0.0, {$0 += $1[i]}) / Double (Element.count)
resultAtoms.append(s)
}
return Element(resultAtoms)
}
}
extension Optional where
Wrapped: Collection,
Wrapped.Element == Optional<FooProtocol>
{
typealias Foo = Wrapped.Element.Wrapped // Doesn't work. How to get class?
var average: Foo { // I cannot use Wrapped.Element, it's Optional
if let thatsList = self {
let withOptionals = Array(thatsList) // OK, its [Optional<FooProtocol>]
let withoutOptionals = thatsList.compactMap({$0}) // OK, its [FooProtocol]
// This is funny, called from class works and makes 'bingo'.
return withoutOptionals.average // Error: Value of protocol type 'FooProtocol' cannot conform to 'FooProtocol'; only struct/enum/class types can conform to protocols
} else {
return Foo() // Hello? init Wrapped? Foo? How to get Foo()?
}
}
}
class Bar<Foo:FooProtocol> {
var mess: [Foo?]?
init (with mess: [Foo?]?) {
self.mess = mess
}
func workOn() {
let z:Foo = mess.average // OK, I can make 'mess.average ?? Foo()' but prefer not do it
}
// Thats OK
func workHard() { // To prove 'Array extension where Element: FooProtocol' works
if let messExist = mess {
let withoutOptionals = messExist.compactMap({$0})
let bingo = withoutOptionals.average //It's OK
}
}
}
class SomeFoo : FooProtocol {
static var count = 3
required init() {
a = 0
b = 0
c = 0
}
required init(_ array: [Double]) {
self.a = Int(array[0])
self.b = Float(array[1])
self.c = array[2]
}
var atomized: () -> [Double] {
return {return [Double(self.a), Double(self.b), self.c]}
}
var a: Int
var b: Float
var c: Double
}
let aFoo = SomeFoo([1, 2, 3])
let bFoo = SomeFoo([7, 9, 1])
let cFoo = SomeFoo([2, 6, 5])
let barData = [nil, aFoo, nil, bFoo, cFoo]
let barWithData = Bar(with: barData)
let barWithoutData = Bar<SomeFoo>(with: nil)
Maybe I should forget about extending array and make some functions inside a class (I'm almost sure I will need those functions somewhere else)
Edit 2
Even if I try to simplify and to make extension for Array I found troubles.
extension Array where
Element == Optional<FooProtocol>
{
func averageNils <Foo: FooProtocol>() -> Foo {
let withOptionals = Array(self) // OK, its [Optional<FooProtocol>]
let withoutOptionals = self.compactMap({$0}) // OK, its [FooProtocol]
return withoutOptionals.average as! Foo // Error: Value of protocol type 'FooProtocol' cannot conform to 'FooProtocol'; only struct/enum/class types can conform to protocols
}
}
From my understanding, it should work as you did, but one never knows what happens in the swift compiler world (and especially it's error messages).
Anyway, you can circumvent digging deeper into Wrapped.Element.Wrapped by specifyig the Wrapped.Element more precisely to be an Optional<FooProtocol>:
protocol FooProtocol {}
class Foo : FooProtocol {}
extension Optional where
Wrapped: Collection, //OK
Wrapped.Element == Optional<FooProtocol> // still good
{
var unfied: Wrapped.Element // Should be 'Foo' if self is '[Foo?]?' {
{
return 1 == 0 ? nil : Foo()
}
}
I have a simple protocol with an associated type, and a protocol extension that returns an array of this type.
protocol Foo {
associatedtype Unit
}
extension Foo {
var allTheFoos: [Unit] {
return []
}
}
I then have a struct which returns some Foo in a computed property, and another computed property that returns the allTheFoos array.
struct FakeFoo: Foo {
typealias Unit = Int
}
struct FooFactory {
var myFoo: some Foo {
return FakeFoo()
}
/* WHICH RETURN TYPE WILL
PLEASE THE SWIFT GODS?!
*/
var allTheFoos: [Foo.Unit] {
return myFoo.allTheFoos
}
}
The return type of allTheFoos matches Xcode's autocomplete type suggestion for the myFoo.allTheFoos call, but understandably, this yields a:
// var allTheFoos: [Foo.Unit] {}
ERROR: Associated type 'Unit' can only be used with a concrete type or generic parameter base
My question is: What return type will make Xcode happy?
Below are my attempts, and their corresponding errors
// var allTheFoos: [some Foo.Unit] {}
ERROR: 'some' types are only implemented for the declared type of properties and subscripts and the return type of functions
// func allTheFoos() -> some [Foo.Unit]
ERROR: Associated type 'Unit' can only be used with a concrete type or generic parameter base
// func allTheFoos<U: Foo.Unit>() -> [U]
ERROR: Associated type 'Unit' can only be used with a concrete type or generic parameter base
ERROR: Cannot convert return expression of type '[(some Foo).Unit]' to return type '[U]'
// func allTheFoos<U>() -> [U] where U: (some Foo).Unit
ERROR: 'some' types are only implemented for the declared type of properties and subscripts and the return type of functions
FYI: The reason I'm doing this in a computed property in the first place is to keep things clean in some SwiftUI code.
Thanks for any help you can give!
=========== UPDATE ===========
I missed some important stuff in my sample code, so to give some context: the code is used in a unit conversion app, so something that can turn Celsius into Kelvin, Kg into lbs, and anything else into anything else.
protocol Unit: Equatable {
var suffix: String { get }
}
struct Value<UnitType: Unit> {
let amount: Double
let unit: UnitType
var description: String {
let formatted = String(format: "%.2f", amount)
return "\(formatted)\(unit.suffix)"
}
}
Value is constrained to a unit type, so that it's not possible to convert Celsius into Litres.
Therefore, we have a Conversion protocol that stores all similar units together:
protocol Conversion {
associatedtype UnitType: Unit
var allUnits: [UnitType] { get }
func convert(value: Value<UnitType>, to unit: UnitType) -> Value<UnitType>
}
extension Conversion {
func allConversions(for value: Value<UnitType>) -> [Value<UnitType>] {
let units = self.allUnits.filter { $0 != value.unit }
return units.map { convert(value: value, to: $0) }
}
}
So an example of a conversion for Temperature would be:
struct Temperature: Conversion {
enum Units: String, Unit, CaseIterable {
case celsius, farenheit, kelvin
var suffix: String {
switch self {
case .celsius: return "˚C"
case .farenheit: return "˚F"
case .kelvin: return "K"
}
}
}
var allUnits: [Units] { return Units.allCases }
func convert(value: Value<Units>, to unit: Units) -> Value<Units> {
/* ... */
}
}
Finally, the actual app code where the problem occurs is here:
struct MyApp {
var current: some Conversion {
return Temperature()
}
// ERROR: Associated type 'UnitType' can only be used with a concrete type or generic parameter base
var allConversions: [Value<Conversion.UnitType>] {
// This value is grabbed from the UI
let amount = 100.0
let unit = current.allUnits.first!
let value = Value(amount: amount, unit: unit)
return current.allConversions(for: value)
}
}
Looking at how you've implemented AnyValue, I think what you want here is just:
var allConversions: [String] {
let units = self.allUnits.filter { $0 != value.unit }
return units.map { convert(value: value, to: $0) }.description
}
Or something like that. All the algorithms that match what you're describing are just "conversion -> string." If that's the case, all you really want is CustomStringConvertible.
Managed to solve this issue using some Type Erasure:
struct AnyValue {
let description: String
init<U: Unit>(_ value: Value<U>) {
self.description = value.description
}
}
allowing for:
var allConversions: [AnyValue] {
// This value is grabbed from the UI
let amount = 100.0
let unit = current.allUnits.first!
let value = Value(amount: amount, unit: unit)
return current.allConversions(for: value).map(AnyValue.init)
}
However, this feels like a clunky solution (and one that opaque return types was introduced to avoid). Is there a better way?
I try to break, count and later join objects inside another class.
So I build protocol:
typealias DataBreaker<T> = () -> [Double]
typealias DataJoiner<T> = (_ particles: [Double]) -> T
protocol SpaceIntepolatable {
associatedtype Atom
var breaker:DataBreaker<Atom> {get}
static var joiner:DataJoiner<Atom> {get}
}
and build an extension for Point:
extension Point:SpaceIntepolatable {
typealias Atom = Point
var breaker:DataBreaker<Atom> {
return {
return [self.x, self.y]
}
}
static var joiner:DataJoiner<Atom> {
return {particles in
return Atom(x: particles[0], y: particles[1])
}
}
}
Till now is fine. I can break Point into an Array<Double>
let particles = atom.breaker()
but joining
let newAtom = Atom.joiner(particles)
causes a compiler error:
Cannot convert value of type 'Atom.Atom' to specified type 'Atom'
It's probably because joiner is a static. But how to avoid it and get Atom as a result?
You have to call it on Point when you are outside the scope of the class.
let newAtom = Point.joiner(particles)
Edit:
You say that you have a generic class that looks like this:
class Space<Atom: SpaceIntepolatable> {
func test() {
let particles: [Double] = [0, 1]
let newAtom: Atom = Atom.joiner(particles)
}
}
Now, the problem is that the type of newAtom is incorrect. The SpaceIntepolatable protocol doesn't specify that Point and Point.Atom are the same type. Therefore Atom (Point) and Atom.Atom (Point.Atom) are not considered the same. What we want is Atom.Atom. Or we can just let the type to be inferred:
let newAtom: Atom.Atom = Atom.joiner(particles)
let newAtom = Atom.joiner(particles)
In general it is advisable not to reuse type names because then you get things like Atom.Atom. Maybe you actually want something like this:
protocol SpaceIntepolatable {
var breaker: DataBreaker<Self> { get }
static var joiner: DataJoiner<Self> { get }
}
and lose the Atom typealias completely, then:
class Space<Atom: SpaceIntepolatable> {
func test() {
let particles: [Double] = [0, 1]
let newAtom: Atom = Atom.joiner(particles)
}
}
will actually work.
In Swift (a language I'm still fairly new to), I'm trying to define a class that allows indexing using either an Int or Range<Int>. For example:
var m = Matrix(rows: 10, cols: 10)
var v = m[1, 0..<10]
The two ways I can think of allowing this issue is to either adding an extension to the Range class:
extension Range {
init(_ intValue:Element) {
self.init(start: intValue, end: intValue.successor())
}
}
or to create an enum that allows for either type:
enum IndexType {
case value(Int)
case range(Range<Int>)
init(_ v:Int) {
self = .value(v)
}
init(_ r:Range<Int>) {
self = .range(r)
}
}
However, neither solution works as intended, as I still need to specify the type manually. For example, given the function:
func slice(indices:IndexType...) -> [Double] {
// ...
}
I can't then just do:
slice(1, 3...4, 5)
but instead have to do:
slice(IndexType(1), IndexType(3...4), 5)
Is there a way to accomplish this in Swift? I'm used to c++, which would do type inference automatically, but the same doesn't appear to work with Swift.
One similar question I found was:
Swift Arrays of Multiple Types
However, I really would like to avoid the use of Any as I know the two types it should be.
protocol MatrixIndex {
var Matrix_range: Range<Int> { get }
}
extension Int : MatrixIndex {
var Matrix_range: Range<Int> {
get {
return Range<Int>(start: self, end: self+1)
}
}
}
extension Range : MatrixIndex {
var Matrix_range: Range<Int> {
get {
return Range<Int>(start: self.startIndex as! Int, end: self.endIndex as! Int)
}
}
}
class Matrix {
subscript(row: MatrixIndex, column: MatrixIndex) -> () {
get {
print("getting \(row.Matrix_range) \(column.Matrix_range)")
}
set(newValue) {
print("setting \(row.Matrix_range) \(column.Matrix_range)")
}
}
}