Say I have a generic box, and squishable objects. If I put something squishy in the box, then the box, too, can be squished.
protocol Squishable {
}
func squish<T: Squishable>(thing: T) {
}
struct Box<T> {
let content: T
}
//Here's what I'd LIKE to write, but it's not valid code:
extension (Box where T: Squishable): Squishable {
//...so I try this instead...
extension Box: Squishable {
func hereBeDragons() {
if content is Squishable {
squish(content as! Squishable)
//...but then: "Generic parameter 'T' cannot be bound to non-#objc protocol type 'Squishable'"
}
}
}
I gather my squish function wants a specific type that happens to be Squishable. But it doesn't seem I can give it one, given the circumstances... Is there a workaround? (In this trivial example, obviously we could change squish to a non-generic that accepts a protocol, but that's a totally different situation then! The question is what to do with this one.)
Edit: As of Xcode 7 beta 2, it seems extensions are more flexible. I can now write this and I think the compiler might know what I mean:
extension Box: Squishable where T: Squishable
But it sadly responds "Extension of type 'Box' with constraints cannot have an inheritance clause". That error seems to explicitly disallow exactly what I wish to do!
If I didn't get it wrong, Xcote 7 Beta 2 which includes Swift 2.0 Beta 2 introduce extension conditionals in a way that solves your question:
protocol Squishable {
}
func squish(thing: Squishable) {
print("Squishable")
}
struct Box<T> {
let content: T
}
extension Box where T: Squishable {
func hereBeDragons() {
squish(content)
}
}
extension Int: Squishable {}
let intBox = Box<Int>(content: 4)
intBox.hereBeDragons()
let stringBox = Box<String>(content: "Foo")
stringBox.hereBeDragons() // Compiler complains since String does not conform to Squishable
Please notice this is still Beta, so things can change. Anyway I'm pretty confident that the final version will have the feature needed from your question.
Related
I am trying to constraint a protocol extension to a generic class. My goal is to provide a default implementation of a protocol where Self is any instance that is subclass of some generic class. Consider the below example:
protocol Printable {
var value: String { get }
}
class Printer<P: Printable> {
let printable: P
init(printable: P) {
self.printable = printable
}
}
protocol Press {
func print()
}
// error: reference to generic type 'Printer' requires arguments in <...>
extension Press where Self: Printer {
func print() {
// Do Something with self.printable.value
}
}
The compiler gives error error: reference to generic type 'Printer' requires arguments in <...>.
I don't understand why this should not be allowed. As long as Press is some kind of Printer which always works with some kind of Printable things should work, right? Or I am missing something?
Can you point what could be the right way of achieving something like this?
This is because Printer<A> and Printer<B> are different types, even A & B are Printable, so due to possible ambiguity compiler generate error.
You need the following (tested with Xcode 11.4)
extension Press {
func print<P>() where Self: Printer<P>, P: Printable {
// Do Something with self.printable.value
}
}
I got this code:
protocol Protocol {
var id: Int { get }
}
extension Array where Element: Protocol {
func contains(_protocol: Protocol) -> Bool {
return contains(where: { $0.id == _protocol.id })
}
}
class Class {
func method<T: Protocol>(_protocol: T) {
var arr = [Protocol]()
// Does compile
let contains = arr.contains(where: { $0.id == _protocol.id })
// Doens't compile
arr.contains(_protocol: _protocol)
}
}
Why doesn't the line of code compile where I commented 'Doens't compile'? This is the error:
Incorrect argument label in call (have '_protocol:', expected 'where:')
When I change the method name in the extension to something else, like containz (and ofcourse change the name of the method that calls it to containz), I get this error when I try to call it:
Using 'Protocol' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'Protocol' is not supported
But why doesn't it work when I try to call it through an extension, but it does work when I create the function in the extension directly? There isn't really any difference that I can see.
I agree with matt that the underlying answer is Protocol doesn't conform to itself?, but it's probably worth answering anyway, since in this case the answer is very simple. First, read the linked question about why [Protocol] doesn't work the way you think it does (especially Hamish's answer, which is much more extensive than the accepted answer that I wrote). [Protocol] does not match the where Element: Protocol clause because Protocol is not a concrete type that conforms to Protocol (because it's not a concrete type).
But you don't need [Protocol] here. You have T: Protocol, so you can (and should) just use that:
var arr = [T]()
With that change, the rest should work as you expect because T is a concrete type that conforms to Protocol.
I would like extend Array to add conformance to a new protocol — but only for arrays whose elements themselves conform to a specific protocol.
More generally, I’d like to have types (whether protocols or concrete types) with type parameters implement a protocol only when the type parameters match certain constraints.
As of Swift 2.0, this appears to be impossible. Is there a way I’m missing?
Example
Suppose we have the Friendly protocol:
protocol Friendly {
func sayHi()
}
We can extend existing types to implement it:
extension String: Friendly {
func sayHi() {
print("Greetings from \(self)!")
}
}
"Sally".sayHi()
We can also extend Array to implement sayHi() when its elements are all Friendly:
extension Array where Element: Friendly {
func sayHi() {
for elem in self {
elem.sayHi()
}
}
}
["Sally", "Fred"].sayHi()
At this point, the type [Friendly] should itself implement Friendly, since it meets the protocol’s requirements. However, this code doesn’t compile:
extension Array: Friendly where Element: Friendly {
func sayHi() {
for elem in self {
elem.sayHi()
}
}
}
The error message is “extension of type 'Array' with constraints cannot have an inheritance clause,” which seems to shut the door definitively on that direct approach.
Is there an indirect workaround? Some clever trick I can use? Perhaps there’s a way that involves extending SequenceType instead of Array?
A working solution would make this code compile:
let friendly: Friendly = ["Foo", "Bar"]
Update: This has landed in Swift 4.1, and it is a thing of beauty!
The extension Array: Friendly where Element: Friendly example now compiles as given in the original question.
EDIT: As noted in the updated question, this is now possible since Swift 4.1
This is not currently possible in Swift (as of Xcode 7.1). As the error indicates, you can't restrict protocol conformance ("inheritance clause") to a type-constrained extension. Maybe someday. I don't believe there's any deep reason for this to be impossible, but it's currently not implemented.
The closest you can get is to create a wrapper type such as:
struct FriendlyArray<Element: Friendly>: Friendly {
let array: [Element]
init(_ array: [Element]) {
self.array = array
}
func sayHi() {
for elem in array {
elem.sayHi()
}
}
}
let friendly: Friendly = FriendlyArray(["Foo", "Bar"])
(You would likely want to extend FriendlyArray to be a CollectionType.)
For a tale of my own descent into the madness of trying to make this work, and my crawl back from the edge, see NSData, My Old Friend.
The good news is that what you are asking for Conditional Conformance is coming in Swift 4.1:
https://swift.org/blog/conditional-conformance/
I've run into a problem where I have some protocol:
protocol Baz {
func bar<T>(input:T)
}
The function bar is made generic because I don't want the protocol itself to have a Self(it needs to be useable in a collection). I have an implementation of the protocol defined as:
class Foo<S>: Baz {
var value:S
init(value:S) {
self.value = value
}
func bar<T>(input:T) {
value = input
}
}
This gives an error because the compiler doesn't know that S and T are the same type. Ideally I should be able to write something like:
func bar<T where T==S>(input:T) {
value = input
}
or
func bar<T:S>(input:T) {
value = input
}
The first form gives a "Same-type requirement makes generic parameter 'S' and 'T' equivalent" error (which is exactly what I'm trying to do, so not sure why it's an error). The second form gives me a "Inheritance from non-protocol, non-class type 'S'".
Any ideas of on either how to get this to work, or a better design pattern in Swift?
Update: As #luk2302 pointed out, I forgot to make Foo adhere to the Baz protocol
#luk2302 has hinted at much of this in the comments, but just to make it explicit for future searchers.
protocol Baz {
func bar<T>(input:T)
}
This protocol is almost certainly useless as written. It is effectively identical to the following protocol (which is also almost completely useless):
protocol Baz {
func bar(input:Any)
}
You very likely mean (and hint that you mean):
protocol Baz {
typealias T
func bar(input: T)
}
As you note, this makes the protocol a PAT (protocol with associated type), which means you cannot put it directly into a collection. As you note, the usual solution to that, if you really need a collection of them, is a type eraser. It would be nice if Swift would automatically write the eraser for you, which it likely will be able to do in the future, and would eliminate the problem. That said, though slightly tedious, writing type erasers is very straightforward.
Now while you cannot put a PAT directly into a collection, you can put a generically-constrained PAT into a collection. So as long as you wrap the collection into a type that constrains T, it's still no problem.
If these become complex, the constraint code can become tedious and very repetitive. This can be improved through a number of techniques, however.
Generic structs with static methods can be used to avoid repeatedly providing constraints on free-functions.
The protocol can be converted into a generic struct (this formalizes the type eraser as the primary type rather than "as needed").
Protocols can be replaced with functions in many cases. For example, given this:
protocol Bar {
typealias T
func bar(input: T)
}
struct Foo : Bar {
func bar(input: Int) {}
}
You can't do this:
let bars: [Bar] = [Foo()] // error: protocol 'Bar' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
But you can easily do this, which is just as good:
let bars = [(Int) -> Void] = [Foo().bar]
This is particularly powerful for single-method protocols.
A mix of protocols, generics, and functions is much more powerful than trying to force everything into the protocol box, at least until protocols add a few more missing features to fulfill their promise.
(It would be easier to give specific advice to a specific problem. There is no one answer that solves all issues.)
EDITED (Workaround for "... an error because the compiler doesn't know that S and T are the same type.")
First of all: This is just an separate note (and perhaps an attempt at redemption for my previous answer that ended up being myself chasing my own tail to compute lots and lots of redundant code) in addition to Robs excellent answer.
The following workaround will possibly let your implementation protocol Foo ... / class Bas : Foo ... mimic the behaviour you initially asked for, in the sense that class method bar(...) will know if generics S and T are actually the same type, while Foo still conforms to the protocol also in the case where S is not of the same type as T.
protocol Baz {
func bar<T>(input:T)
}
class Foo<S>: Baz {
var value:S
init(value:S) {
self.value = value
}
func bar<T>(input:T) {
if input is S {
value = input as! S
}
else {
print("Incompatible types. Throw...")
}
}
}
// ok
var a = Foo(value: 1.0) // Foo<Double>
print(a.value) // 1.0
a.bar(2.0)
print(a.value) // 2.0
let myInt = 1
a.bar(myInt) // Incompatible types. Throw...
print(a.value) // 2.0
// perhaps not a loophole we indended
let myAny : Any = 3.0
a.bar(myAny)
print(a.value) // 3.0
The Any and AnyObject loophole here could be redeemed by creating a dummy type constraint that you extend all types (that you wish for to use the generics) to, however not extending Any and AnyObject.
protocol NotAnyType {}
extension Int : NotAnyType {}
extension Double : NotAnyType {}
extension Optional : NotAnyType {}
// ...
protocol Baz {
func bar<T: NotAnyType>(input:T)
}
class Foo<S: NotAnyType>: Baz {
var value:S
init(value:S) {
self.value = value
}
func bar<T: NotAnyType>(input:T) {
if input is S {
value = input as! S
}
else {
print("Incompatible types. Throw...")
}
}
}
// ok
var a = Foo(value: 1.0) // Foo<Double>
// ...
// no longer a loophole
let myAny : Any = 3.0
a.bar(myAny) // compile time error
let myAnyObject : AnyObject = 3.0
a.bar(myAnyObject) // compile time error
This, however, excludes Any and AnyObject from the generic in full (not only for "loophole casting"), which is perhaps not a sought after behaviour.
I would like extend Array to add conformance to a new protocol — but only for arrays whose elements themselves conform to a specific protocol.
More generally, I’d like to have types (whether protocols or concrete types) with type parameters implement a protocol only when the type parameters match certain constraints.
As of Swift 2.0, this appears to be impossible. Is there a way I’m missing?
Example
Suppose we have the Friendly protocol:
protocol Friendly {
func sayHi()
}
We can extend existing types to implement it:
extension String: Friendly {
func sayHi() {
print("Greetings from \(self)!")
}
}
"Sally".sayHi()
We can also extend Array to implement sayHi() when its elements are all Friendly:
extension Array where Element: Friendly {
func sayHi() {
for elem in self {
elem.sayHi()
}
}
}
["Sally", "Fred"].sayHi()
At this point, the type [Friendly] should itself implement Friendly, since it meets the protocol’s requirements. However, this code doesn’t compile:
extension Array: Friendly where Element: Friendly {
func sayHi() {
for elem in self {
elem.sayHi()
}
}
}
The error message is “extension of type 'Array' with constraints cannot have an inheritance clause,” which seems to shut the door definitively on that direct approach.
Is there an indirect workaround? Some clever trick I can use? Perhaps there’s a way that involves extending SequenceType instead of Array?
A working solution would make this code compile:
let friendly: Friendly = ["Foo", "Bar"]
Update: This has landed in Swift 4.1, and it is a thing of beauty!
The extension Array: Friendly where Element: Friendly example now compiles as given in the original question.
EDIT: As noted in the updated question, this is now possible since Swift 4.1
This is not currently possible in Swift (as of Xcode 7.1). As the error indicates, you can't restrict protocol conformance ("inheritance clause") to a type-constrained extension. Maybe someday. I don't believe there's any deep reason for this to be impossible, but it's currently not implemented.
The closest you can get is to create a wrapper type such as:
struct FriendlyArray<Element: Friendly>: Friendly {
let array: [Element]
init(_ array: [Element]) {
self.array = array
}
func sayHi() {
for elem in array {
elem.sayHi()
}
}
}
let friendly: Friendly = FriendlyArray(["Foo", "Bar"])
(You would likely want to extend FriendlyArray to be a CollectionType.)
For a tale of my own descent into the madness of trying to make this work, and my crawl back from the edge, see NSData, My Old Friend.
The good news is that what you are asking for Conditional Conformance is coming in Swift 4.1:
https://swift.org/blog/conditional-conformance/