For some USTRUCT structs within UnrealEngine, type traits TStructOpsTypeTraits<T> are defined. These provide a list of bools (encapsulated in an enumeration) about the implemented capabilities of struct T.
What is the usage of those traits?
When I should define those traits for my custom USTRUCTs within my project?
*Example usage from within the Engine:
struct TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2
{
enum
{
WithZeroConstructor = false, // struct can be constructed as a valid object by filling its memory footprint with zeroes.
WithNoInitConstructor = false, // struct has a constructor which takes an EForceInit parameter which will force the constructor to perform initialization, where the default constructor performs 'uninitialization'.
WithNoDestructor = false, // struct will not have its destructor called when it is destroyed.
WithCopy = !TIsPODType<CPPSTRUCT>::Value, // struct can be copied via its copy assignment operator.
// ...
}
}
Which is used like
template<>
struct TStructOpsTypeTraits<FGameplayEffectContextHandle> : public TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2<FGameplayEffectContextHandle>
{
enum
{
WithCopy = true, // Necessary so that TSharedPtr<FGameplayEffectContext> Data is copied around
WithNetSerializer = true,
WithIdenticalViaEquality = true,
};
};
It seems that traits are used for USTRUCTs that are used in blueprints; and that they are required for structs which have a NetSerialize() function. I made spot checks:
WithIdenticalViaEquality -> UScriptStruct::HasIdentical() -> EStructFlags::STRUCT_IdenticalNative is used only in ::IdenticalHelper() which is intended for Blueprints
EStructFlags::STRUCT_NetSerializeNative is used for error messages (when the structs are used in blueprints) and in FObjectReplicator and FRepLayout, where this trait is required to be present for custom property replication
the description of TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 seems to tell, that these traits are only important, when the USTRUCTs are used within blueprints
type traits to cover the custom aspects of a script struct
UnrealEngine defines also a number of specialized traits for its container classes (e.g. TTypeTraitsBase). A comparison with c++ type_traits might be meaningful.
Many of the features available "out-of-the-box" in Unreal Engine 4 (e.g. replication, initialization, serialization, etc.) rely on information specific to each class. This allows different classes to - for example - customize how to serialize their own data.
For classes inheriting from the base UObject class, all the needed information are stored into properties or returned by overridable methods. For example, if you want to customize how your UObject-derived class manages serialization, you can simply override its virtual Serialize() method. This is enough for UE4 to be able to invoke your custom implementation when it need to serialize an instance of your class.
The problem with structs in UE4, is that they don't inherit from a common base class/interface. So UE4 doesn't have any pre-declare property or method to call. Trying to call an undeclared method will of course cause a compilation error in C++. Following the previous example on the custom serialization - UE4 can't in general invoke the Serialize() method on structs because some/most of them will not have such method and the compiler will report it as an error.
TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is the solution to the above problem. You declare a specialization of it for your custom structs to inform UE4 of which methods are available. When done, using a mix of template meta-programming and auto-generated code, UE4 will be able to call such methods to provide again out-of-the-box services or allow you to customize default behaviors. For example, declaring WithSerializer = true you're informing UE4 that your struct has a custom Serialize() method and so UE4 will be able to automatically call it every time it needs to serialize an instance of your struct.
TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is not limited to structs used with Blueprints, but is used also with USTRUCT() used in C++.
On when to use it, you need to declare a custom specialization of TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 when the default behavior of UE4 on your structure is not what you want (e.g. you want to serialize its data in a different way while the default implementation serializes all the not-transient UPROPERTY() using "standard" formats).
While the "form" is similar, the scope of TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is different than C++ type_traits: type_traits is used by the compiler to inform the program/programmer about platform characteristics. TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is used by the programmer to inform UE4 about available "extra" features of a custom struct.
I'm still a newbie to swift and I can't get a clear answer on a couple things.
So far I've just been using a single file in playgrounds.
If I want to use more files, how can I access data (variables and functions) from classes created there in my main file that controls the view?
From what I understand having multiple files would just be for convenience so I don't have could to write it again.
(Also on the side) what does it mean when a function has private, public or just 'func'?
I'm using swift 3 playgrounds
Thanks
Making things public will make them importable from other modules. Making it private will make it only accessible by methods within its containing scope (encapsulation). For code that lives at the top level, this scope is the entire .swift file it lives in. Without either access modifier (just bare “func”), your thing will default to internal, which means it is accessible from any other code within the same module, but not by code in a different module.
A special case is the fileprivate modifier which restricts access to the .swift file the code lives in. For code that does not live in a class or struct, this does the exact same thing as private. Some Swift designers discourage use of this modifier, and it may be removed in future versions of Swift.
There is a fifth access modifier in Swift, open, which does the exact same thing as public, except it also allows subclassing, and only applies to classes. This one is rarely used, but useful for certain library interfaces.
To import all the public symbols in a module, use
import Module
To import a single public symbol, use
import var Module.variable
import func Module.function
import struct Module.structure
import class Module.class
...
In c# we have the protected accessor which allows class members to be visible on inherited clases but not for the rest.
In Swift this doesn't exist so I wonder what's a correct approach for something like this:
I want to have a variable (internal behavior) and and a public method using this variable on a base class. This variable will be used also on inherited clases.
Options I see
Forget about base class and implement variable and methods everywhere I need it. WRONG, duplicated code
Implement inheritance by composition. I'd create a class containing common methods and this will be used by composition instead of inheritance. LESS WRONG but still repeating code that could be avoided with inheritance
Implement inheritance and make variable internal on base class. WRONG since exposes things without any justification except allowing visibility on inherited clases.
Implementation Details for Base Class
I want to have a NSOperationQueue instance and and a public method to cancel queued operations. I add new operations to this queue from inherited classes.
In Swift the correct answer is almost always protocols and extensions. It is almost never inheritance. Sometimes Cocoa stands in our way, because there are classes in Cocoa more often than protocols, but the goal is almost always protocols and extensions. Subclassing is our last choice.
Your particular case is confusing because NSOperationQueue already has a public method to cancel queued operations (cancelAllOperations). If you want to protect the queue from outside access (prevent callers from using addOperation directly for instance), then you should put the queue inside another type (i.e. composition), and forward what you want to the queue. More details on the specific problem you're solving would allow us to help suggest other Swift-like solutions.
If in the end you need something that looks like protected or friend, the correct solution is private. Put your subclass or your friend in the same file with the target, and mark the private thing private. Alternately, put the things that need to work together in a framework, and mark the attribute internal. The Swift Blog provides a good explanation of why this is an intentional choice.
Coming from Objective-C, I am very fond of header files which expose the interface of a piece of code. Swift has always bothered me a bit because even the most organized code still tends to bury the public/private API's among the rest of the code, making you dig for details.
Are there any practices or tricks where I can define the public interface of a class or module external to the implementation? Right now I'm just making comments at the top of the Swift file and it feels arcane.
As far as I know you can not just declare a method in a class and implement it at other places in Swift.
I feel you want that for clarity and organizing your methods into class. To achieve that in Swift I follow some techniques that I would be happy to share with you:
Organize methods in groups based on access i.e. public, private and internal. Public methods on top as you want your client to look at them first, then internal and last private.
You may sub organize related methods together for making it easy to understand, maintain and navigate through.
Some time it is good to break above rules to group public and private method if they are related and has heavy dependancies.
You may group related methods that do a specific task in to extensions. I generally follow this pattern for implementing specific protocol or delegate in a class. This you could do in a separate file as well.
This is not direct answer to your question but I have tried to address the core of it by targeting organization of methods in a class.
So I've been exploring the options here and it looks like you can define an interface using a protocol, and having your class conform to that protocol. Kind of out of the way, but if a public interface is the goal, this achieves that.
// Foo.swift
protocol PublicFoo {
func publiclyExposedMethod(arg:AnyObject) -> AnyObject
var publiclyExposedVariable:AnyObject
}
class Foo : PublicFoo {
var publiclyExposedVariable:AnyObject = // something
func publiclyExposedMethod(arg:AnyObject) -> AnyObject {
// do stuff...
}
}
In Objective-C instance data can be public, protected or private. For example:
#interface Foo : NSObject
{
#public
int x;
#protected:
int y;
#private:
int z;
}
-(int) apple;
-(int) pear;
-(int) banana;
#end
I haven't found any mention of access modifiers in the Swift reference. Is it possible to limit the visibility of data in Swift?
As of Swift 3.0.1, there are 4 levels of access, described below from the highest (least restrictive) to the lowest (most restrictive).
1. open and public
Enable an entity to be used outside the defining module (target). You typically use open or public access when specifying the public interface to a framework.
However, open access applies only to classes and class members, and it differs from public access as follows:
public classes and class members can only be subclassed and overridden within the defining module (target).
open classes and class members can be subclassed and overridden both within and outside the defining module (target).
// First.framework – A.swift
open class A {}
// First.framework – B.swift
public class B: A {} // ok
// Second.framework – C.swift
import First
internal class C: A {} // ok
// Second.framework – D.swift
import First
internal class D: B {} // error: B cannot be subclassed
2. internal
Enables an entity to be used within the defining module (target). You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
// First.framework – A.swift
internal struct A {}
// First.framework – B.swift
A() // ok
// Second.framework – C.swift
import First
A() // error: A is unavailable
3. fileprivate
Restricts the use of an entity to its defining source file. You typically use fileprivate access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those details are used within an entire file.
// First.framework – A.swift
internal struct A {
fileprivate static let x: Int
}
A.x // ok
// First.framework – B.swift
A.x // error: x is not available
4. private
Restricts the use of an entity to its enclosing declaration. You typically use private access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those details are used only within a single declaration.
// First.framework – A.swift
internal struct A {
private static let x: Int
internal static func doSomethingWithX() {
x // ok
}
}
A.x // error: x is unavailable
Swift 4 / Swift 5
As per mentioned in the Swift Documentation - Access Control, Swift has 5 Access Controls:
open and public: can be accessed from their module's entities and any module's entities that imports the defining module.
internal: can only be accessed from their module's entities. It is the default access level.
fileprivate and private: can only be accessed in limited within a limited scope where you define them.
What is the difference between open and public?
open is the same as public in previous versions of Swift, they allow classes from other modules to use and inherit them, i.e: they can be subclassed from other modules. Also, they allow members from other modules to use and override them. The same logic goes for their modules.
public allow classes from other module to use them, but not to inherit them, i.e: they cannot be subclassed from other modules. Also, they allow members from other modules to use them, but NOT to override them. For their modules, they have the same open's logic (they allow classes to use and inherit them; They allow members to use and override them).
What is the difference between fileprivate and private?
fileprivate can be accessed from the their entire files.
private can only be accessed from their single declaration and to extensions of that declaration that are in the same file; For instance:
// Declaring "A" class that has the two types of "private" and "fileprivate":
class A {
private var aPrivate: String?
fileprivate var aFileprivate: String?
func accessMySelf() {
// this works fine
self.aPrivate = ""
self.aFileprivate = ""
}
}
// Declaring "B" for checking the abiltiy of accessing "A" class:
class B {
func accessA() {
// create an instance of "A" class
let aObject = A()
// Error! this is NOT accessable...
aObject.aPrivate = "I CANNOT set a value for it!"
// this works fine
aObject.aFileprivate = "I CAN set a value for it!"
}
}
What are the differences between Swift 3 and Swift 4 Access Control?
As mentioned in the SE-0169 proposal, the only refinement has been added to Swift 4 is that the private access control scope has been expanded to be accessible from extensions of that declaration in the same file; For instance:
struct MyStruct {
private let myMessage = "Hello World"
}
extension MyStruct {
func printMyMessage() {
print(myMessage)
// In Swift 3, you will get a compile time error:
// error: 'myMessage' is inaccessible due to 'private' protection level
// In Swift 4 it should works fine!
}
}
So, there is no need to declare myMessage as fileprivate to be accessible in the whole file.
When one talks about making a "private method" in Swift or ObjC (or ruby or java or…) those methods aren't really private. There's no actual access control around them. Any language that offers even a little introspection lets developers get to those values from outside the class if they really want to.
So what we're really talking about here is a way to define a public-facing interface that merely presents the functionality we want it to, and "hides" the rest that we consider "private".
The Swift mechanism for declaring interfaces is the protocol, and it can be used for this purpose.
protocol MyClass {
var publicProperty:Int {get set}
func publicMethod(foo:String)->String
}
class MyClassImplementation : MyClass {
var publicProperty:Int = 5
var privateProperty:Int = 8
func publicMethod(foo:String)->String{
return privateMethod(foo)
}
func privateMethod(foo:String)->String{
return "Hello \(foo)"
}
}
Remember, protocols are first-class types and can be used anyplace a type can. And, when used this way, they only expose their own interfaces, not those of the implementing type.
Thus, as long as you use MyClass instead of MyClassImplementation in your parameter types, etc. it should all just work:
func breakingAndEntering(foo:MyClass)->String{
return foo.privateMethod()
//ERROR: 'MyClass' does not have a member named 'privateMethod'
}
There are some cases of direct assignment where you have to be explicit with type instead of relying on Swift to infer it, but that hardly seems a deal breaker:
var myClass:MyClass = MyClassImplementation()
Using protocols this way is semantic, reasonably concise, and to my eyes looks a lot like the Class Extentions we've been using for this purpose in ObjC.
As far as I can tell, there are no keywords 'public', 'private' or 'protected'. This would suggest everything is public.
However Apple may be expecting people to use “protocols” (called interfaces by the rest of the world) and the factory design pattern to hide details of the implementation type.
This is often a good design pattern to use anyway; as it lets you change your implementation class hierarchy, while keeping the logical type system the same.
Using a combination of protocols, closures, and nested/inner classes, it's possible to use something along the lines of the module pattern to hide information in Swift right now. It's not super clean or nice to read but it does work.
Example:
protocol HuhThing {
var huh: Int { get set }
}
func HuhMaker() -> HuhThing {
class InnerHuh: HuhThing {
var innerVal: Int = 0
var huh: Int {
get {
return mysteriousMath(innerVal)
}
set {
innerVal = newValue / 2
}
}
func mysteriousMath(number: Int) -> Int {
return number * 3 + 2
}
}
return InnerHuh()
}
HuhMaker()
var h = HuhMaker()
h.huh // 2
h.huh = 32
h.huh // 50
h.huh = 39
h.huh // 59
innerVal and mysteriousMath are hidden here from outside use and attempting to dig your way into the object should result in an error.
I'm only part of the way through my reading of the Swift docs so if there's a flaw here please point it out, would love to know.
As of Xcode 6 beta 4, Swift has access modifiers. From the release notes:
Swift access control has three access levels:
private entities can only be accessed from within the source file where they are defined.
internal entities can be accessed anywhere within the target where they are defined.
public entities can be accessed from anywhere within the target and from any other context that imports the current target’s module.
The implicit default is internal, so within an application target you can leave access modifiers off except where you want to be more restrictive. In a framework target (e.g. if you're embedding a framework to share code between an app and an sharing or Today view extension), use public to designate API you want to expose to clients of your framework.
Swift 3.0 provides five different access controls:
open
public
internal
fileprivate
private
Open access and public access enable entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, and also in a
source file from another module that imports the defining module. You
typically use open or public access when specifying the public
interface to a framework.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that
module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a
framework’s internal structure.
File-private access restricts the use of an entity to its own defining source file. Use file-private access to hide the
implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those
details are used within an entire file.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to the enclosing declaration. Use private access to hide the implementation details of
a specific piece of functionality when those details are used only
within a single declaration.
Open access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private access is the lowest (most restrictive) access level.
Default Access Levels
All entities in your code (with a few specific exceptions) have a default access level of internal if you do not specify an explicit access level yourself. As a result, in many cases you do not need to specify an explicit access level in your code.
The release note on the topic:
Classes declared as public can no longer be subclassed outside of
their defining module, and methods declared as public can no longer be
overridden outside of their defining module. To allow a class to be
externally subclassed or a method to be externally overridden, declare
them as open, which is a new access level beyond public. Imported
Objective-C classes and methods are now all imported as open rather
than public. Unit tests that import a module using an #testable import
will still be allowed to subclass public or internal classes as well
as override public or internal methods. (SE-0117)
More information & details :
The Swift Programming Language (Access Control)
In Beta 6, the documentation states that there are three different access modifiers:
Public
Internal
Private
And these three apply to Classes, Protocols, functions and properties.
public var somePublicVariable = 0
internal let someInternalConstant = 0
private func somePrivateFunction() {}
For more, check Access Control.
Now in beta 4, they've added access modifiers to Swift.
from Xcode 6 beta 4 realese notes:
Swift access control has three access levels:
private entities can only be accessed from within the source file where they are defined.
internal entities can be accessed anywhere within the target where they are defined.
public entities can be accessed from anywhere within the target and from any other context
that imports the current target’s module.
By default, most entities in a source file have internal access. This allows application developers
to largely ignore access control while allowing framework developers full control over a
framework's API.
Access control mechanisms as introduced in Xcode 6:
Swift provides three different access levels for entities within your code. These access levels are relative to the source file in which an entity is defined, and also relative to the module that source file belongs to.
Public access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, and also in a source file from another module that imports the defining module. You typically use public access when specifying the public interface to a framework.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to its own defining source file. Use private access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality.
Public access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private access is the lowest (or most restrictive) access level.
Default accecss it internal, and does as such not need to be specified. Also note that the private specifier does not work on the class level, but on the source file level. This means that to get parts of a class really private you need to separate into a file of its own. This also introduces some interesting cases with regards to unit testing...
Another point to me made, which is commented upon in the link above, is that you can't 'upgrade' the access level. If you subclass something, you can restrict it more, but not the other way around.
This last bit also affects functions, tuples and surely other stuff in the way that if i.e. a function uses a private class, then it's not valid to have the function internal or public, as they might not have access to the private class. This results in a compiler warning, and you need to redeclare the function as a private function.
Swift 3 and 4 brought a lot of change also for the access levels of variables and methods. Swift 3 and 4 now has 4 different access levels, where open/public access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private access is the lowest (most restrictive) access level:
private functions and members can only be accessed from within the scope of the entity itself (struct, class, …) and its extensions (in Swift 3 also the extensions were restricted)
fileprivate functions and members can only be accessed from within the source file where they are declared.
internal functions and members (which is the default, if you do not explicitly add an access level key word) can be accessed anywhere within the target where they are defined. Thats why the TestTarget doesn't have automatically access to all sources, they have to be marked as accessible in xCode's file inspector.
open or public functions and members can be accessed from anywhere within the target and from any other context that imports the current target’s module.
Interesting:
Instead of marking every single method or member as "private", you can cover some methods (e.g. typically helper functions) in an extension of a class / struct and mark the whole extension as "Private".
class foo { }
private extension foo {
func somePrivateHelperFunction01() { }
func somePrivateHelperFunction02() { }
func somePrivateHelperFunction03() { }
}
This can be a good idea, in order to get better maintainable code. And you can easily switch (e.g. for unit testing) to non-private by just changing one word.
Apple documentation
For Swift 1-3:
No, it's not possible. There aren't any private/protected methods and variables at all.
Everything is public.
Update
Since Swift 4, it's possible see other answers in this thread
One of the options you could use is to wrap the instance creation into a function and supply the appropriate getters and setters in a constructor:
class Counter {
let inc: () -> Int
let dec: () -> Int
init(start: Int) {
var n = start
inc = { ++n }
dec = { --n }
}
}
let c = Counter(start: 10)
c.inc() // 11
c.inc() // 12
c.dec() // 11
The language grammar does not have the keywords 'public', 'private' or 'protected'. This would suggest everything is public. Of course, there could be some alternative method of specifying access modifiers without those keywords but I couldn't find it in the language reference.
Hopefully to save some time for those who want something akin to protected methods:
As per other answers, swift now provides the 'private' modifier - which is defined file-wise rather than class-wise such as those in Java or C# for instance. This means that if you want protected methods, you can do it with swift private methods if they are in the same file
Create a base class to hold 'protected' methods (actually private)
Subclass this class to use the same methods
In other files you cannot access the base class methods, even when you subclass either
e.g. File 1:
class BaseClass {
private func protectedMethod() {
}
}
class SubClass : BaseClass {
func publicMethod() {
self.protectedMethod() //this is ok as they are in same file
}
}
File 2:
func test() {
var a = BaseClass()
a.protectedMethod() //ERROR
var b = SubClass()
b.protectedMethod() //ERROR
}
class SubClass2 : BaseClass {
func publicMethod() {
self.protectedMethod() //ERROR
}
}
till swift 2.0 there were only three access level [Public, internal, private]
but in swift 3.0 apple added two new access level which are [ Open, fileType ] so
now in swift 3.0 there are 5 access level
Here I want to clear the role of these two access level
1. Open: this is much similar to Public but the only difference is that the Public
can access the subclass and override, and Open access level can not access that this image is taken from Medium website and this describe the difference between open and public access
Now to second new access level
2. filetype is bigger version of private or less access level than internal
The fileType can access the extended part of the [class, struct, enum]
and private can not access the extended part of code it can only access the
lexical scope
this image is taken from Medium website and this describe the difference between fileType and Private access level