Swift generics: return type based on parameter type - swift

Say I have a collection of objects inheriting from a common superclass (this is preferable to protocols in this case):
class ObjectSuperClass {
type: ObjectType
}
class ObjectClass1: ObjectSuperClass {
type = .Type1
}
class ObjectClass2: ObjectSuperClass {
type = .Type2
}
I'm looking to create a generic search function like this:
func objectsOfType<T: ObjectSuperClass>(T.class, otherFilter: Any?) -> [T]
Which could be used to search for a given sub-type, returning a more specific array of results:
let result = objectsOfType(ObjectClass2.class, otherFilter: nil) -> [ObjectClass2]
(pseudo-swift)
I feel like this is somewhere generics could help, but cannot see where constraints should be placed. Is it possible?

Well remarkably this works...
func filterType<T>(list: [AnyObject]) -> [T]
{
return list.filter{ $0 is T }.map{ $0 as! T }
}
...provided you assign the result to something that has been explicitly typed, as in the following example:
class ObjectSuperClass: CustomStringConvertible
{
let myType: String
init(aString: String)
{
myType = aString
}
var description: String { return myType }
}
class ObjectClass1: ObjectSuperClass
{
init()
{
super.init(aString: "<t 1>")
}
}
class ObjectClass2: ObjectSuperClass
{
init()
{
super.init(aString: "<t 2>")
}
}
let unfilteredList: [AnyObject] = [ ObjectClass1(), ObjectClass2(), ObjectSuperClass(aString: "<Who knows>")]
let filteredList1: [ObjectClass1] = filterType(list: unfilteredList)
print("\(filteredList1)") // <t 1>
let filteredList2: [ObjectClass2] = filterType(list: unfilteredList)
print("\(filteredList2)") // <t 2>
let filteredList3: [ObjectSuperClass] = filterType(list: unfilteredList)
print("\(filteredList3)") // [<t 1>, <t 2>, <Who knows>]
T is inferred in each case from the requested return type. The function itself filters the original array based on whether the elements are of the required type and then force casts the filtered results to the correct type.
If you want an "extra filter" you don't need to explicitly type the results as long as T can be inferred from your extra filter function.
func extraFilterType<T>(list: [AnyObject], extraFilter: T -> Bool) -> [T]
{
return list.filter{ $0 is T }.map{ $0 as! T }.filter(extraFilter)
}
let filteredList = extraFilterType(unfilteredList){
(element : ObjectClass2) -> Bool in
!element.description.isEmpty
}
print("\(filteredList)") // <t 2>
EDIT
A slicker version of the filterType function would use flatMap()
func filterType<T>(list: [Any]) -> [T]
{
return list.flatMap{ $0 as? T }
}
EDIT 2
Flatmap is deprecated for optionals, since Swift 4.something, use compactMap
func filterType<T>(list: [Any]) -> [T]
{
return list.compactMap{ $0 as? T }
}

This is the closest approximation I can come up with:
func objectsOfType<T: ObjectSuperClass>(type type: T.Type) -> [T] {
// Just returns an array of all objects of given type
}
func objectsOfType<T: ObjectSuperClass>(type type: T.Type, predicate: T -> Bool) -> [T] {
// Uses predicate to filter out objects of given type
}
Usage:
let bar = objectsOfType(type: ObjectClass1.self)
let baz = objectsOfType(type: ObjectClass2.self) {
// Something that returns Bool and uses $0
}
Technically, you can also go without type argument in the above, but then you will need to have explicitly typed receivers (bar and baz in the above example) so that Swift can correctly infer the types for you and use the right version of the generic function.

You can implement the function like this:
func objectsOfType<T: ObjectSuperClass>(objects: [ObjectSuperClass], subclass: T.Type, otherFilter: (T->Bool)?) -> [T] {
if let otherFilter = otherFilter {
return objects.filter{$0 is T && otherFilter($0 as! T)}.map{$0 as! T}
} else {
return objects.filter{$0 is T}.map{$0 as! T}
}
}
Usage example:
objectsOfType(arrayOfObjects, subclass: ObjectClass1.self, otherFilter: nil)
Note that I'm not a fan of forced casting, however in this scenario it should not cause problems.
Or, the more verbose version of the function, with one less forced cast:
func objectsOfType<T: ObjectSuperClass>(objects: [ObjectSuperClass], subclass: T.Type, otherFilter: (T->Bool)?) -> [T] {
return objects.filter({object in
if let object = object as? T {
if let otherFilter = otherFilter {
return otherFilter(object)
} else {
return true
}
} else {
return false
}
}).map({object in
return object as! T
})
}

Related

how to store away sequence variables with constraints in swift

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
}
}
}

Can you check if a Type (not an instance) is a subclass of another Type?

Given this code...
class Vehicle{}
class Car : Vehicle {}
class Honda : Car {}
How would you write the function 'findFirst' below...
class TypeManager {
var managedTypes:[Any.Type]?
func findFirst(_ type:Any.Type) -> Any.Type? {
return managedTypes.first{ t in t is type.Type } // <-- Doesn't like 'type'
}
}
var typeManager = TypeManager()
typeManager.managedTypes = [
String.self,
Int.self,
Honda.self
]
let firstCarType = typeManager.findFirst(Car.Type)
Note: This is actually doing a reverse-key-lookup on a dictionary. In a perfect solution, I'd first try finding an exact match on 'type', and if not found, settle for a subclass of 'type'. I just simplified the (faked) code to focus on the matching portion.
To expand upon Martin R's great answer you can make an array extension like the following:
extension Array {
func first<T>(ofType: T.Type) -> T.Type? {
return first { $0 is T.Type } as? T.Type
}
func first<T>(ofExactType type: T.Type) -> T.Type? {
return first { $0 as? Any.Type == type } as? T.Type
}
}
class Vehicle {}
class Car : Vehicle {}
class Honda: Car {}
let carTypes = [Honda.self, Vehicle.self, Car.self] // Inferred type [Vehicle]
print(carTypes.first(ofType: Car.self) ?? "n/a") // prints Honda
print(carTypes.first(ofExactType: Car.self) ?? "n/a") // prints Car
Also, just FYI, $0 as? Any.Type == type is the same as doing $0 as? Any.Type == T.self. Either one would work.
Classes are instances of a meta-type and can be checked with is and as?.
You can use a generic function to pass in the sought type:
class TypeManager {
var managedTypes:[Any.Type] = []
func findFirst<T>(_: T.Type) -> Any.Type? {
return managedTypes.first { $0 is T.Type }
}
}
Example:
if let firstCarType = typeManager.findFirst(Car.self) {
print(firstCarType) // Honda
}
Or with conditional binding and compactMap:
class TypeManager {
var managedTypes:[Any.Type] = []
func findFirst<T>(_: T.Type) -> T.Type? {
return managedTypes.compactMap { $0 as? T.Type }.first
}
}
This has the advantage that the returned type is T.Type? and not Any.Type?. (Use managedTypes.lazy.compactMap if the list can be large and short circuiting is wanted.)

How to filter objects of certain type from [AnyObject] array

Is it possible to filter an array of [AnyObject] to yield all elements of a given type, and none other?
I can do it if the type is known at compile time:
class MyClass1: CustomStringConvertible {
var value: Int
var description: String {
return "MyClass1: \(value)"
}
init(_ value: Int) {
self.value = value
}
}
class MyClass2: CustomStringConvertible {
var value: Int
var description: String {
return "MyClass1: \(value)"
}
init(_ value: Int) {
self.value = value
}
}
class MySubClass1: MyClass1 {
override var description: String {
return "MySubClass1: \(value)"
}
}
let a1 = MySubClass1(1)
let a2 = MySubClass1(2)
let b1 = MyClass1(3)
let b2 = MyClass2(4)
let array: [AnyObject] = [a1, b1, a2, b2]
func getClass1ObjectsFromArray(_ array: [AnyObject]) -> [MyClass1] {
return array.compactMap( { $0 as? MyClass1 })
}
func getSubClass1ObjectsFromArray(_ array: [AnyObject]) -> [MySubClass1] {
return array.compactMap( { $0 as? MySubClass1 })
}
print(getClass1ObjectsFromArray(array))
print(getSubClass1ObjectsFromArray(array))
Prints:
[MySubClass1: 1, MyClass1: 3, MySubClass1: 2]
[MySubClass1: 1, MySubClass1: 2]
For every type I want to filter on, I had to write a separate function. This looks ugly to me, and will not work when the type to be selected for is only known at run time.
Question:
Is there a generic way to write such a function? Preferably something like:
func getObjectsOfType(_ type: TypeExpression, fromArray array: [AnyObject])
-> [TypeExpression] {
...
}
Or any other way to achieve this?
Thanks for any help!
I think you could use something like this...
let filteredArray = array.compactMap { $0 as? RequiredType }
This will filter the array and return a typed array containing only the type you want.
Caveat
Having said that. In Swift you should be avoiding heterogeneous arrays where possible. Arrays should really only contain one type of item.
A bit of code testing...
Tested in Playground...
let array: [Any] = [1, "hello", 3, 3.1415, "world"]
let filteredArray = array.compactMap { $0 as? String }
filteredArray
Output:
filteredArray = ["hello", "world"]
👍🏻
Edit 1
You could also create a generic function something like this...
func filter<T>(array: [Any]) -> [T] {
return array.compactMap { $0 as? T }
}
let filteredArray: [String] = filter(array: array)
This will then filter based on the type of the output array that you want.
I'm not sure what you mean by only knowing the type you want at run time. Can you give a more concrete example of what you mean?
Edit 2
Another possibility is a generic function like this...
func filter<T>(array: [Any], byType typeObject: T) -> [T] {
return array.compactMap { $0 as? T }
}
let filteredArray = filter(array: array, byType: "some string")
This uses the type information of the second parameter to filter the array by that type of item.
Edit 3
If you don't like passing in an instance of the type then you can pass the type itself...
func filter<T>(array: [Any], byType typeObject: T.Type) -> [T] {
return array.compactMap { $0 as? T }
}
let filteredArray = filter(array: array, byType: String.self)
But I'm not sure what more you're getting from this than just filtering by string in the first place?

Swift sorting on arbitrary types

I have a Set of instances of type Thingie, and I want to provide arrays of Thingies sorted on any property of Thingie. Some of the properties are Int, for instance, while others are String, and there could be others. So I wanted to create a sort routine that accepts a string as the name of the property and compares the two properties of two thingies to determine the order.
It seemed like a job for generics, and I'm getting close, but there's a hole.
Here's where I'm at right now:
func compare<T:Comparable>(lft: T, _ rgt: T) -> Bool {
return lft < rgt
}
func orderBy(sortField: String) -> [Thingie] {
let allArray = (self.thingies as NSSet).allObjects as! [Thingie]
//typealias T = the type of allArray[0][sortField]
// or maybe create an alias that conforms to a protocol:
//typealias T:Comparable = ?
return allArray.sort({(a, b) -> Bool in
return self.compare(a[sortField] as! T, b[sortField] as! T)
})
}
I created a compare function using generics, and invoke it in my sort routine. The catch is that AnyObject! will not work for my generic, so I need to cast the values returned from a[sortField] and b[sortField] to be of the same type. It doesn't even really matter what type as long as the compiler is happy that both values are of the same type and that it implements the Comparable protocol.
I figured a typealias would do the trick, but maybe there's a better way?
Side question: surely there's a better way to create the initial, unsorted array from the set without resorting to NSSet. A little hint would be welcome. [Solved that bit! Thanks, Oliver Atkinson!]
Here's a big 'ol chunk of code you can paste into a playground. It has three attempts at the orderBy implementation, each with a problem.
//: Playground - noun: a place where people can play
import Foundation
class Thingie: Hashable {
var data: [String: AnyObject]
var hashValue: Int
init(data: [String: AnyObject]) {
self.data = data
self.hashValue = (data["id"])!.hashValue
}
subscript(propName: String) -> AnyObject! {
return self.data[propName]
}
}
func ==(lhs: Thingie, rhs: Thingie) -> Bool {
return lhs.hashValue == rhs.hashValue
}
var thingies: Set = Set<Thingie>()
thingies.insert(Thingie(data: ["id": 2, "description": "two"]));
thingies.insert(Thingie(data: ["id": 11, "description": "eleven"]));
// attempt 1
// won't compile because '<' won't work when type is ambiguous e.g., AnyObject
func orderByField1(sortField: String) -> [Thingie] {
return thingies.sort { $0[sortField] < $1[sortField] }
}
// compare function that promises the compiler that the operands for < will be of the same type:
func compare<T:Comparable>(lft: T, _ rgt: T) -> Bool {
return lft < rgt
}
// attempt 2
// This compiles but will bomb at runtime if Thingie[sortField] is not a string
func orderByField2(sortField: String) -> [Thingie] {
return thingies.sort { compare($0[sortField] as! String, $1[sortField] as! String) }
}
// attempt 3
// Something like this would be ideal, but protocol Comparable can't be used like this.
// I suspect the underlying reason that Comparable can't be used as a type is the same thing preventing me from making this work.
func orderByField3(sortField: String) -> [Thingie] {
return thingies.sort { compare($0[sortField] as! Comparable, $1[sortField] as! Comparable) }
}
// tests - can't run until a compiling candidate is written, of course
// should return array with thingie id=2 first:
var thingieList: Array = orderByField2("id");
print(thingieList[0]["id"])
// should return array with thingie id=11 first:
var thingieList2: Array = orderByField2("description");
print(thingieList2[0]["id"])
My previous answer, though it works, does not make the most of the Swift's excellent type checker. It also switches between the types that can be used in one centralised place which limits extensibility to the framework owner.
The following approach solves these issues. (Please forgive me for not having the heart to delete my previous answer; let us say that it's limitations are instructive...)
As before, we'll start with the target API:
struct Thing : ThingType {
let properties: [String:Sortable]
subscript(key: String) -> Sortable? {
return properties[key]
}
}
let data: [[String:Sortable]] = [
["id": 1, "description": "one"],
["id": 2, "description": "two"],
["id": 3, "description": "three"],
["id": 4, "description": "four"],
["id": 4, "description": "four"]
]
var things = data.map(Thing.init)
things.sortInPlaceBy("id")
things
.map{ $0["id"]! } // [1, 2, 3, 4]
things.sortInPlaceBy("description")
things
.map{ $0["description"]! } // ["four", "one", "three", "two"]
To make this possible we must have this ThingType protocol and an extension to mutable collections (which will work for sets as well as arrays):
protocol ThingType {
subscript(_: String) -> Sortable? { get }
}
extension MutableCollectionType
where Index : RandomAccessIndexType, Generator.Element : ThingType
{
mutating func sortInPlaceBy(key: String, ascending: Bool = true) {
sortInPlace {
guard let lhs = $0[key], let rhs = $1[key] else {
return false // TODO: nil handling
}
guard let b = (try? lhs.isOrderedBefore(rhs, ascending: ascending)) else {
return false // TODO: handle SortableError
}
return b
}
}
}
Evidently, the whole idea revolves around this Sortable protocol:
protocol Sortable {
func isOrderedBefore(_: Sortable, ascending: Bool) throws -> Bool
}
... which can be conformed to independently by any type we want to work with:
import Foundation
extension NSNumber : Sortable {
func isOrderedBefore(other: Sortable, ascending: Bool) throws -> Bool {
try throwIfTypeNotEqualTo(other)
let f: (Double, Double) -> Bool = ascending ? (<) : (>)
return f(doubleValue, (other as! NSNumber).doubleValue)
}
}
extension NSString : Sortable {
func isOrderedBefore(other: Sortable, ascending: Bool) throws -> Bool {
try throwIfTypeNotEqualTo(other)
let f: (String, String) -> Bool = ascending ? (<) : (>)
return f(self as String, other as! String)
}
}
// TODO: make more types Sortable (including those that do not conform to NSObject or even AnyObject)!
This throwIfTypeNotEqualTo method is just a convenience extension of Sortable:
enum SortableError : ErrorType {
case TypesNotEqual
}
extension Sortable {
func throwIfTypeNotEqualTo(other: Sortable) throws {
guard other.dynamicType == self.dynamicType else {
throw SortableError.TypesNotEqual
}
}
}
And that's it. Now we can conform new types to Sortable even outside of the framework and the type checker is validating our [[String:Sortable]] source data at compile time. Also, if Thing is extended to conform to Hashable then Set<Thing> will also be sortable by key...
Note that, although Sortable is itself unconstrained (which is awesome), source data and Thing's properties can be constrained to dictionaries with NSObject or AnyObject values if required by making use of a protocol like:
protocol SortableNSObjectType : Sortable, NSObjectProtocol { }
... or more directly by declaring data and Thing's properties as:
let _: [String : protocol<Sortable, NSObjectProtocol>]
I don't know the implementation of Thingie but maybe you could provide more context.
You could however go for something like this
func orderBy(sortField: String) -> [Thingie] {
return thingies.allObjects.map { $0 as! Thingie }.sort { $0[sortField] < $1[sortField] }
}
If you could provide a playground example so I can provide further help.
Also why did you use NSSet rather than a swift Set? would that give you what you want
let thingies: Set = Set<Thingie>()
func orderBy(sortField: String) -> [Thingie] {
return thingies.sort { $0[sortField] < $1[sortField] }
}
edit:
The trouble is with swift's type safety - it requires you to know what types you are dealing with so that it can compile correctly - if you specify the actual type when you want to order the field you can get it to work as expected.
func orderByField<T: Comparable>(sortField: String, type: T.Type) -> [Thingie] {
return thingies.sort { ($0[sortField] as? T) < ($1[sortField] as? T) }
}
var thingieList: Array = orderByField("id", type: Int.self);
print(thingieList[0]["id"])
var thingieList2: Array = orderByField("description", type: String.self);
print(thingieList2[0]["id"])
The above will print 2 then 11 - if you wanted to get around this you could store your objects in a different struct and then you can sort the array of 'Things' on the variable.
e.g.
struct Thing {
let id: Int
let description: String
}
var data: [Thing] = [
Thing(id: 2, description: "two"),
Thing(id: 11, description: "eleven")
]
let first = data.sort { $0.id < $1.id }.first?.id
let second = data.sort { $0.description < $1.description }.first?.id
print(first)
print(second)
Which would achieve the same thing - 2 and 11
I would advise against using AnyObject where possible as its trying to cheat the compiler into telling it you don't care for its help.
Its an interesting problem though and I hope this helps you towards your solution.
I will start with the target API (ignoring conformance to Hashable as its addition wont change anything in what follows). So, let's say we'd like to be able to write the following:
var thingies = [
["id": 1, "description": "one"],
["id": 2, "description": "two"],
["id": 3, "description": "three"],
["id": 4, "description": "four"]
].map(Thingie.init)
thingies.sortInPlace{ $0["id"] < $1["id"] }
... and even:
thingies.sortInPlaceBy("id")
thingies
.map{ $0["id"]!.value } // [1, 2, 3, 4]
thingies.sortInPlaceBy("description")
thingies
.map{ $0["description"]!.value } // ["four", "one", "three", "two"]
Obviously, we'd need an extension of MutableCollectionType protocol along the lines of:
protocol ThingieDatumSubscriptable {
subscript(_: String) -> ThingieDatum? { get }
}
extension Thingie : ThingieDatumSubscriptable {}
extension MutableCollectionType
where Index : RandomAccessIndexType, Generator.Element : ThingieDatumSubscriptable
{
mutating func sortInPlaceBy(datumName: String, ascending: Bool = true) {
let f: (ThingieDatum?, ThingieDatum?) -> Bool = ascending ? (<) : (>)
sortInPlace{ f($0[datumName], $1[datumName]) }
}
}
This ThingieDatum would then be something like:
import Foundation
struct ThingieDatum : Comparable {
let type: AnyObject.Type
let value: AnyObject
let name: String
init(keyValuePair: (String, AnyObject)) {
name = keyValuePair.0
value = keyValuePair.1
type = keyValuePair.1.dynamicType
}
}
... and its conformance to Comparable implemented in some sort of pedestrian way as follows (unless we introduce more protocols):
func == (lhs: ThingieDatum, rhs: ThingieDatum) -> Bool {
guard lhs.name == rhs.name && lhs.type == rhs.type else {
return false
}
switch lhs.type {
// TODO: implement for other types
case is NSNumber.Type: return lhs.value as! NSNumber == rhs.value as! NSNumber
case is NSString.Type: return (lhs.value as! String) == (rhs.value as! String)
default: break
}
return false
}
func < (lhs: ThingieDatum, rhs: ThingieDatum) -> Bool {
assert(lhs.name == rhs.name && lhs.type == rhs.type)
switch lhs.type {
// TODO: implement for other types
case is NSNumber.Type: return (lhs.value as! NSNumber).doubleValue < (rhs.value as! NSNumber).doubleValue
case is NSString.Type: return (lhs.value as! String) < (rhs.value as! String)
default: break
}
return false
}
Armed with such a ThingieDatum we can finally work out the Thingie itself:
struct Thingie {
var data: [ThingieDatum]
init(_ data: [String: AnyObject]) {
self.data = data.map(ThingieDatum.init)
}
subscript(datumName: String) -> ThingieDatum? {
for datum in data where datum.name == datumName {
return datum
}
return nil
}
}
And although this is, of course, all meant as a fun exercise, it does work (copy and paste into the playground if you can work our the correct order of snippets)... To take this idea further, however, we would probably want to constrain ThingiDatum initialiser to a custom protocol (rather than AnyObject), which would guarantee comparability. We would then conform to that protocol with each type we want to work with instead of switching through those types in one centralised place...

How can I write a protocol extension to get all the rawValues from an Swift enum

What I am trying to do is create a protocol extension to fetch an array of raw values from an enum. For example say I have the following:
enum TestType: String, EnumIteratable {
case unitTest = "Unit Test"
case uiTest = "UI Test"
}
class EnumIterator: NSObject {
class func iterateEnum<T: Hashable>(_: T.Type) -> AnyGenerator<T> {
var i = 0
return anyGenerator {
let next = withUnsafePointer(&i) { UnsafePointer<T>($0).memory }
return next.hashValue == i++ ? next : nil
}
}
class func getValues<T: Hashable>(_: T.Type) -> [T] {
let iterator = self.iterateEnum(T)
var returnArray = [T]()
for val in iterator {
returnArray.append(val)
}
return returnArray
}
}
How can I implement the protocol EnumIteratable so that I can call TestType.getRawValues() and have it return an string array of all the raw enum values?
Thanks!
Scott's solution is probably the one you want. But if you were looking for something more generic that you can apply to arbitrary future enumerations and allows for additional cases, you could try this:
First, you need a method to iterate over Enum cases. I used this implementation from here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/28341290/914887
func iterateEnum<T: Hashable>(_: T.Type) -> AnyGenerator<T> {
var i = 0
return anyGenerator {
let next = withUnsafePointer(&i) { UnsafePointer<T>($0).memory }
return next.hashValue == i++ ? next : nil
}
}
Then, you can create your protocol, that defines the static functions you want:
protocol EnumIteratable {
typealias ENUM_TYPE:Hashable, RawRepresentable = Self
static func getAllValues() -> [ ENUM_TYPE ]
static func getRawValues() -> [ ENUM_TYPE.RawValue ]
}
I used an associated type to allow the conforming enums to specify their type to the protocol. getAllValues is not strictly necessary, but it simplifies the logic.
Then, you can define your generic default implementations:
extension EnumIteratable {
static func getAllValues() -> [ ENUM_TYPE ]
{
var retval = [ ENUM_TYPE ]()
for item in iterateEnum( ENUM_TYPE )
{
retval.append( item )
}
return retval
}
static func getRawValues() -> [ ENUM_TYPE.RawValue ]
{
return getAllValues().map( { ( item:ENUM_TYPE ) -> ENUM_TYPE.RawValue in item.rawValue } )
}
}
Finally, all you need to do is conform to that protocol any time you need to iterate over the enum:
enum TestType: String, EnumIteratable {
case unitTest = "Unit Test"
case uiTest = "UI Test"
}
TestType.getRawValues()
The advantage here, is that I can add a new case for integrationTest and I only need to add that in one place.
You could just add a static property to return all enum values. For example:
enum RelationshipStatus: String {
case Single = "Single"
case Married = "Married"
case ItsComplicated = "It's complicated"
static let all: [RelationshipStatus] = [.Single, .Married, .ItsComplicated]
}
for status in RelationshipStatus.all {
print(status.rawValue)
}