Consider this fragment of code:
public protocol Evaluable {
typealias ReturnType
func eval(s: State) -> ReturnType
}
protocol AlgebraicExpr : Evaluable {
}
public struct Const : AlgebraicExpr {
var value: Int = 0
public func eval(s: State) -> Int {
return value
}
}
public struct Add : AlgebraicExpr {
let a, b: AlgebraicExpr
public func eval(s: State) -> Int {
return a.eval() + b.eval()
}
}
it is invalid because Add cannot have an AlgebraicExpr variable.
But I really need Add to store two AlgebraicExprs. How would you solve this in Swift?
For completeness, State is just a struct, for example:
public struct State {
var env = Dictionary<String, Int>()
init(_ d: Dictionary<String, Int> = [:]) {
env = d
}
subscript(s: String) -> Int? {
get {return env[s]}
set {env[s] = newValue}
}
}
You can't store two protocols that rely on Self, or a typealias because when abstracted as a protocol, the functionality is undetermined. Type Evaluable has no real meaning without understanding the value of ReturnType, so it's not possible for the system to function logically and understand what should be returned.
Take for instance something like this (not valid)
let thing: Evaluable = ...
let result = thing.eval(state) // What should return type be?
The return type can't be inferred through the protocol alone, it requires an implementation by a specified type that gives more knowledge about its behavior by defining the typealias ReturnType
The reason these can function as generic constraints is that the implementation can be inferred through the generic parameters.
func genericConstrained<T: Evaluable>(evaluable: T, state: State) -> T.ReturnType {
return evaluable.eval(state)
}
In this example, when we call genericConstrained on a particular conforming object, all of its other functionality can be inferred.
tl;dr
If however, you also constrain your package, you could do as you wish:
public struct Add<ExpressionType : AlgebraicExpr> : AlgebraicExpr {
let a, b: ExpressionType
public func eval(s: State) -> ExpressionType.ReturnType {
return a.eval() + b.eval()
}
}
Then use like
let add: Add<SomeConformingType> = ...
Related
I wanted to create a "where_non_null" operation that works on any swift sequence - which is easy if you return an array, but obviously that is potentially bad performance wise - because you are forcing the entire sequence to resolve in memory - so I created the following that just goes line by line:
//
// this iterates through the underlying sequence, and returns only the values that are not null
//
public class Not_null_iterator<T> : IteratorProtocol
{
public typealias Element = T
private let next_function : () -> T?
init<T_iterator: IteratorProtocol>( _ source: T_iterator ) where T_iterator.Element == Optional<T>
{
var iterator = source
next_function =
{
while (true)
{
if let next_value = iterator.next()
{
if let not_null_value = next_value
{
return not_null_value
}
}
else
{
return nil
}
}
}
}
public func next() -> T? {
next_function()
}
}
//
// a sequence wrapping an underlying sequence, that removes any nulls as we go through
//
public class Not_null_sequence<T > : Sequence
{
private var iterator_creator : () -> Not_null_iterator<T>
init<T_source_sequence : Sequence >( _ source : T_source_sequence ) where T_source_sequence.Element == Optional<T>
{
iterator_creator =
{
Not_null_iterator(source.makeIterator())
}
}
public func makeIterator() -> Not_null_iterator<T>
{
iterator_creator()
}
}
extension Sequence
{
//
// return only the not null values in the sequence without ever resolving more than one item in memory at one time and remove the optionality on the type
//
func where_not_null<T>() -> Not_null_sequence<T> where Element == Optional<T>
{
return Not_null_sequence( self)
}
}
class Where_not_null_tests : XCTestCase
{
public func test_where_not_null()
{
let source = [1, 2, 3, nil, 4]
let checked : [Int] = Array(source.where_not_null())
XCTAssertEqual([1,2,3,4],checked)
}
}
which works great - however I had to define the next() and make_iterator() functions in the constructor, because I couldn't find any type safe way of putting the source into a class level variable.
Is there a way of doing that?
[and yes, I'm aware swift people prefer camel case]
Rather than just using one generic parameter, you'd need two generic parameters. You can't just constrain one generic parameter to say that it has to be some sequence with an element of some Optional. You need another generic parameter to say what the optional's type is:
class NotNilIterator<T: IteratorProtocol, U>: IteratorProtocol where T.Element == U? {
typealias Element = U
var iterator: T
init(_ source: T) {
iterator = source
}
func next() -> Element? {
// I feel this is clearer what is going on
while true {
switch iterator.next() {
case .some(.none):
continue
case .none:
return nil
case .some(.some(let element)):
return element
}
}
}
}
class NotNilSequence<T: Sequence, U> : Sequence where T.Element == U?
{
let sequence: T
init(_ source : T)
{
sequence = source
}
public func makeIterator() -> NotNilIterator<T.Iterator, U>
{
.init(sequence.makeIterator())
}
}
whereNotNil would then be declared like this:
func whereNotNil<T>() -> NotNilSequence<Self, T> where Self.Element == T?
{
return .init(self)
}
Note the use of self types. The first parameter is the type of the underlying sequence, the second is the non-optional type.
Note that this sort of "lazily computed sequence" is already built into Swift. To lazily filter out the nils, do:
let array = [1, 2, 3, nil, 4]
let arrayWithoutNil = array.lazy.compactMap { $0 }
The downside is that the type names are quite long. arrayWithoutNil is of type
LazyMapSequence<LazyFilterSequence<LazyMapSequence<LazySequence<[Int?]>.Elements, Int?>>, Int>
But you can indeed get non-optional Ints out of it, so it does work.
The way swift generics work can sometimes be very confusing (but has it's advantages). Instead of declaring that a variable is of a generic protocol (resp. a protocol with associated types), you instead declare another generic type which itself conforms to your protocol. Here's your iterator as an example (I have taken the liberty to clean up the code a bit):
public class Not_null_iterator<T, T_iterator> : IteratorProtocol where
T_iterator: IteratorProtocol,
T_iterator.Element == Optional<T>
{
private var source: T_iterator
init(_ source: T_iterator) {
self.source = source
}
public func next() -> T? {
while let next_value = source.next()
{
if let not_null_value = next_value
{
return not_null_value
}
}
return nil
}
}
The non-null sequence works analogous:
public class Not_null_sequence<T, Source>: Sequence where
Source: Sequence,
Source.Element == Optional<T>
{
private var source: Source
init(_ source: Source) {
self.source = source
}
public func makeIterator() -> Not_null_iterator<T, Source.Iterator> {
Not_null_iterator(self.source.makeIterator())
}
}
Using this some IteratorProtocol is just a nice way to let the compiler figure out the type. It is equivalent to saying Not_null_iterator<T, Source.Iterator>
As a (potentially) interesting side-note, to clean up the generic mess even more, you can nest the iterator class inside the Not_null_sequence:
public class Not_null_sequence<T, Source>: Sequence where
Source: Sequence,
Source.Element == Optional<T>
{
private var source: Source
init(_ source: Source) {
self.source = source
}
public func makeIterator() -> Iterator{
Iterator(self.source.makeIterator())
}
public class Iterator: IteratorProtocol {
private var source: Source.Iterator
init(_ source: Source.Iterator) {
self.source = source
}
public func next() -> T? {
while let next_value = source.next()
{
if let not_null_value = next_value
{
return not_null_value
}
}
return nil
}
}
}
Here's something I'm playing with. The problem is that I have a container class that has a generic argument which defines the type returned from a closure. I want to add a function that is only available if they generic type is optional and have that function return a instance containing a nil.
Here's the code I'm currently playing with (which won't compile):
open class Result<T>: Resolvable {
private let valueFactory: () -> T
fileprivate init(valueFactory: #escaping () -> T) {
self.valueFactory = valueFactory
}
func resolve() -> T {
return valueFactory()
}
}
public protocol OptionalType {}
extension Optional: OptionalType {}
public extension Result where T: OptionalType {
public static var `nil`: Result<T> {
return Result<T> { nil } // error: expression type 'Result<T>' is ambiguous without more context
}
}
Which I'd like to use like this:
let x: Result<Int?> = .nil
XCTAssertNil(x.resolve())
Any idea how to make this work?
I don't think you can achieve this with a static property, however you can achieve it with a static function:
extension Result {
static func `nil`<U>() -> Result where T == U? {
return .init { nil }
}
}
let x: Result<Int?> = .nil()
Functions are way more powerful than properties when it comes to generics.
Update After some consideration, you can have the static property, you only need to add an associated type to OptionalType, so that you'd know what kind of optional to have for the generic argument:
protocol OptionalType {
associatedtype Wrapped
}
extension Optional: OptionalType { }
extension Result where T: OptionalType {
static var `nil`: Result<T.Wrapped?> {
return Result<T.Wrapped?> { nil }
}
}
let x: Result<Int?> = .nil
One small downside is that theoretically it enables any kind of type to add conformance to OptionalType.
Hi I'm trying to create a function which accepts a generic type that conforms to a specific protocol, and this protocol has a static builder that return a new instance of the same class (using associated type), after that he returns the new object that was created.
The generic function will return a list of the generic type.
In my efforts to make it compile, I found a solution, but I feel like I cheated, please see the following code:
import UIKit
protocol SomeRougeProtocol {
associatedtype U
static func convert(id: String) -> U
}
class FirstRougeClass: SomeRougeProtocol {
typealias U = FirstRougeClass
let value: String
init(value: String = "") {
self.value = value
}
static func convert(id: String) -> FirstRougeClass {
return FirstRougeClass(value: id)
}
}
class SecondRougeClass: SomeRougeProtocol {
typealias U = SecondRougeClass
let value: String
init(value: String = "") {
self.value = "special \(value)"
}
static func convert(id: String) -> SecondRougeClass {
return SecondRougeClass()
}
}
/// Takes type and generate an array from it.
func superConvert<T: SomeRougeProtocol>(class: T) -> [T.U] {
return [T.convert(id: "1"), T.convert(id: "2"), T.convert(id: "3")]
}
// *** This is the cheasty part, I have to create a disposable object to pass as input, it won't compile otherwise.
let disposableObject = FirstRougeClass()
let a: [FirstRougeClass] = superConvert(class: disposableObject)
a[0].value // Generates "1" in the playground, success!
My question is, if there is a better way to achieve what I done? without using a disposable object would be a big plus haha
Thanks!
just a quick question. I have the following code, which works just fine:
class obA: Printable {
var description: String { get { return "obA" } }
}
class obB: Printable {
var description: String { get { return "obB" } }
}
func giveObject() -> obA { return obA() }
func giveObject() -> obB { return obB() }
var a: obA = giveObject()
var b: obB = giveObject()
println(a)
println(b)
The right variant of giveObject is being called and all is well. Of course this is just a simplified case, in reality in my project there are several dozens of overloads of 'giveObject', all differing in return type. Now, I want to make a generic function to parse all these things. So, next step:
func giveGeneric<T>() -> T {
return giveObject()
}
var c: obA = giveGeneric()
println(c)
And this complains about ambiguous use of giveObject. I can understand where the error comes from, but I don't see right away how I can solve it and use a construct like this...
First of all just a note.
If the generic type of giveGeneric is simply T, then it can be anything (a String, an Int, ...). So how should giveObject() react in this case?
I mean, if you write:
let word : String = giveGeneric()
internally your generic function calls something like:
let result : String = giveObject() // Ambiguous use of giveObject
My solution
I declared a protocol as follow:
protocol MyObject {
init()
}
Then I made your 2 classes conform to the protocol
class obA: Printable, MyObject {
var description: String { get { return "obA" } }
required init() {}
}
class obB: Printable, MyObject {
var description: String { get { return "obB" } }
required init() {}
}
Finally I can write this
func giveGeneric<T:MyObject>() -> T {
return T()
}
Now I can use it:
let a1 : obA = giveGeneric()
let b1 : obB = giveGeneric()
You decide if this is the solution you were looking for or simply a workaround.
That cannot work, even if you implement a giveObject function for any possible type. Since T can be any type, the giveGeneric method cannot determine the correct overload to invoke.
The only way I can think of is by creating a huge swift with as many cases as the number of types you want to handle:
func giveGeneric<T>() -> T? {
switch "\(T.self)" {
case "\(obA.self)":
return giveObject() as obA as? T
case "\(obB.self)":
return giveObject() as obB as? T
default:
return .None
}
}
But I don't think I would use such a solution even with a gun pointed at my head - it's really ugly.
If in all your cases you create instances using a parameterless constructor, then you might create a protocol and constraint the T generic type to implement it:
protocol Instantiable {
init()
}
func giveGeneric<T: Instantiable>() -> T {
return T()
}
You can use with built-in as well as new types - for instance:
extension String : Instantiable {
// `String` already implements `init()`, so nothing to add here
}
let s: String = giveGeneric()
Alternatively, if you prefer you can make the protocol declare a static giveObject method rather than a parameterless constructor:
protocol Instantiable {
static func giveObject() -> Self
}
func giveGeneric<T: Instantiable>() -> T {
return T.giveObject()
}
extension String : Instantiable {
static func giveObject() -> String {
return String()
}
}
let s: String = giveGeneric()
I have created 2 protocols with associated types. A type conforming to Reader should be able to produce an instance of a type conforming to Value.
The layer of complexity comes from a type conforming to Manager should be able to produce a concrete Reader instance which produces a specific type of Value (either Value1 or Value2).
With my concrete implementation of Manager1 I'd like it to always produce Reader1 which in turn produces instances of Value1.
Could someone explain why
"Reader1 is not convertible to ManagedReaderType?"
When the erroneous line is changed to (for now) return nil it all compiles just fine but now I can't instantiate either Reader1 or Reader2.
The following can be pasted into a Playground to see the error:
import Foundation
protocol Value {
var value: Int { get }
}
protocol Reader {
typealias ReaderValueType: Value
func value() -> ReaderValueType
}
protocol Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType: Value
func read<ManagerReaderType: Reader where ManagerReaderType.ReaderValueType == ManagerValueType>() -> ManagerReaderType?
}
struct Value1: Value {
let value: Int = 1
}
struct Value2: Value {
let value: Int = 2
}
struct Reader1: Reader {
func value() -> Value1 {
return Value1()
}
}
struct Reader2: Reader {
func value() -> Value2 {
return Value2()
}
}
class Manager1: Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType = Value1
let v = ManagerValueType()
func read<ManagerReaderType: Reader where ManagerReaderType.ReaderValueType == ManagerValueType>() -> ManagerReaderType? {
return Reader1()// Error: "Reader1 is not convertible to ManagedReaderType?" Try swapping to return nil which does compile.
}
}
let manager = Manager1()
let v = manager.v.value
let a: Reader1? = manager.read()
a.dynamicType
The error occurs because ManagerReaderType in the read function is only a generic placeholder for any type which conforms to Reader and its ReaderValueType is equal to the one of ManagerReaderType. So the actual type of ManagerReaderType is not determined by the function itself, instead the type of the variable which gets assigned declares the type:
let manager = Manager1()
let reader1: Reader1? = manager.read() // ManagerReaderType is of type Reader1
let reader2: Reader2? = manager.read() // ManagerReaderType is of type Reader2
if you return nil it can be converted to any optional type so it always works.
As an alternative you can return a specific type of type Reader:
protocol Manager {
// this is similar to the Generator of a SequenceType which has the Element type
// but it constraints the ManagerReaderType to one specific Reader
typealias ManagerReaderType: Reader
func read() -> ManagerReaderType?
}
class Manager1: Manager {
func read() -> Reader1? {
return Reader1()
}
}
This is the best approach with protocols due to the lack of "true" generics (the following isn't supported (yet)):
// this would perfectly match your requirements
protocol Reader<T: Value> {
fun value() -> T
}
protocol Manager<T: Value> {
func read() -> Reader<T>?
}
class Manager1: Manager<Value1> {
func read() -> Reader<Value1>? {
return Reader1()
}
}
So the best workaround would be to make Reader a generic class and Reader1 and Reader2 subclass a specific generic type of it:
class Reader<T: Value> {
func value() -> T {
// or provide a dummy value
fatalError("implement me")
}
}
// a small change in the function signature
protocol Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType: Value
func read() -> Reader<ManagerValueType>?
}
class Reader1: Reader<Value1> {
override func value() -> Value1 {
return Value1()
}
}
class Reader2: Reader<Value2> {
override func value() -> Value2 {
return Value2()
}
}
class Manager1: Manager {
typealias ManagerValueType = Value1
func read() -> Reader<ManagerValueType>? {
return Reader1()
}
}
let manager = Manager1()
// you have to cast it, otherwise it is of type Reader<Value1>
let a: Reader1? = manager.read() as! Reader1?
This implementation should solve you problem, but the Readers are now reference types and a copy function should be considered.