Trying to add helper functions for classes that conform to two different protocols
protocol A {
func doA()
}
protocol B {
func doB()
}
typealias AnB = A & B
extension AnB { // causes error can not extend non-nominal type
func doAnB()
{
doA()
doB()
}
}
Any way around this?
Sadly, you cannot extend a composite protocol typealias.
extension A where Self: B {
func doAnB() {
doA()
doB()
}
}
Try this method please.
protocol A {
func doA()
}
protocol B {
func doB()
}
protocol C: A, B{
func doC()
}
You can create a new protocol C by combining two protocols A, B. And declare the variable of C Protocol in the class where you want to use it.
And implement extension of main class where you want to run the doC() function like below.
class ViewController{
let delegate: C?
}
extension ViewController: C { // try this new one.
func doC()
{
self.delegate?.doA()
self.delegate?.doB()
}
func doA(){}
func doB(){}
}
Here is the link for the reference of Protocol combination in Swift 5.6
I have two classes, Object and SubObject. A protocol, MyProtocol, has an associatedtype of type Object. In two extensions, I have provided implementations of the save function. When I create an instance of TestClass with either of the classes, they both result in a call to the least specific extension implementation, while it would be expected to call the most specific one.
class Object {}
class SubObject: Object {}
protocol MyProtocol {
associatedtype T: Object
func save()
}
extension MyProtocol {
func save() {
print("Object")
}
}
extension MyProtocol where T == SubObject {
func save() {
print("SubObject")
}
}
class MyClass<T: Object>: MyProtocol {
}
class TestClass<T: Object> {
typealias U = MyClass<T>
func test() {
let myClass = U()
myClass.save()
}
}
let testClass1 = TestClass<Object>()
testClass1.test() // returns "Object"
let testClass2 = TestClass<SubObject>()
testClass2.test() // returns "Object" (should be "SubObject")
How can I solve this, so that the TestClass calls the correct implementation of save? Or is this not currently possible in Swift? Any help would be appreciated!
I have a protocol P that returns a copy of the object:
protocol P {
func copy() -> Self
}
and a class C that implements P:
class C : P {
func copy() -> Self {
return C()
}
}
However, whether I put the return value as Self I get the following error:
Cannot convert return expression of type 'C' to return type 'Self'
I also tried returning C.
class C : P {
func copy() -> C {
return C()
}
}
That resulted in the following error:
Method 'copy()' in non-final class 'C' must return Self to conform
to protocol 'P'
Nothing works except for the case where I prefix class C with final ie do:
final class C : P {
func copy() -> C {
return C()
}
}
However if I want to subclass C then nothing would work. Is there any way around this?
The problem is that you're making a promise that the compiler can't prove you'll keep.
So you created this promise: Calling copy() will return its own type, fully initialized.
But then you implemented copy() this way:
func copy() -> Self {
return C()
}
Now I'm a subclass that doesn't override copy(). And I return a C, not a fully-initialized Self (which I promised). So that's no good. How about:
func copy() -> Self {
return Self()
}
Well, that won't compile, but even if it did, it'd be no good. The subclass may have no trivial constructor, so D() might not even be legal. (Though see below.)
OK, well how about:
func copy() -> C {
return C()
}
Yes, but that doesn't return Self. It returns C. You're still not keeping your promise.
"But ObjC can do it!" Well, sort of. Mostly because it doesn't care if you keep your promise the way Swift does. If you fail to implement copyWithZone: in the subclass, you may fail to fully initialize your object. The compiler won't even warn you that you've done that.
"But most everything in ObjC can be translated to Swift, and ObjC has NSCopying." Yes it does, and here's how it's defined:
func copy() -> AnyObject!
So you can do the same (there's no reason for the ! here):
protocol Copyable {
func copy() -> AnyObject
}
That says "I'm not promising anything about what you get back." You could also say:
protocol Copyable {
func copy() -> Copyable
}
That's a promise you can make.
But we can think about C++ for a little while and remember that there's a promise we can make. We can promise that we and all our subclasses will implement specific kinds of initializers, and Swift will enforce that (and so can prove we're telling the truth):
protocol Copyable {
init(copy: Self)
}
class C : Copyable {
required init(copy: C) {
// Perform your copying here.
}
}
And that is how you should perform copies.
We can take this one step further, but it uses dynamicType, and I haven't tested it extensively to make sure that is always what we want, but it should be correct:
protocol Copyable {
func copy() -> Self
init(copy: Self)
}
class C : Copyable {
func copy() -> Self {
return self.dynamicType(copy: self)
}
required init(copy: C) {
// Perform your copying here.
}
}
Here we promise that there is an initializer that performs copies for us, and then we can at runtime determine which one to call, giving us the method syntax you were looking for.
With Swift 2, we can use protocol extensions for this.
protocol Copyable {
init(copy:Self)
}
extension Copyable {
func copy() -> Self {
return Self.init(copy: self)
}
}
There is another way to do what you want that involves taking advantage of Swift's associated type. Here's a simple example:
public protocol Creatable {
associatedtype ObjectType = Self
static func create() -> ObjectType
}
class MyClass {
// Your class stuff here
}
extension MyClass: Creatable {
// Define the protocol function to return class type
static func create() -> MyClass {
// Create an instance of your class however you want
return MyClass()
}
}
let obj = MyClass.create()
Actually, there is a trick that allows to easily return Self when required by a protocol (gist):
/// Cast the argument to the infered function return type.
func autocast<T>(some: Any) -> T? {
return some as? T
}
protocol Foo {
static func foo() -> Self
}
class Vehicle: Foo {
class func foo() -> Self {
return autocast(Vehicle())!
}
}
class Tractor: Vehicle {
override class func foo() -> Self {
return autocast(Tractor())!
}
}
func typeName(some: Any) -> String {
return (some is Any.Type) ? "\(some)" : "\(some.dynamicType)"
}
let vehicle = Vehicle.foo()
let tractor = Tractor.foo()
print(typeName(vehicle)) // Vehicle
print(typeName(tractor)) // Tractor
Swift 5.1 now allow a forced cast to Self, as! Self
1> protocol P {
2. func id() -> Self
3. }
9> class D : P {
10. func id() -> Self {
11. return D()
12. }
13. }
error: repl.swift:11:16: error: cannot convert return expression of type 'D' to return type 'Self'
return D()
^~~
as! Self
9> class D : P {
10. func id() -> Self {
11. return D() as! Self
12. }
13. } //works
Following on Rob's suggestion, this could be made more generic with associated types. I've changed the example a bit to demonstrate the benefits of the approach.
protocol Copyable: NSCopying {
associatedtype Prototype
init(copy: Prototype)
init(deepCopy: Prototype)
}
class C : Copyable {
typealias Prototype = C // <-- requires adding this line to classes
required init(copy: Prototype) {
// Perform your copying here.
}
required init(deepCopy: Prototype) {
// Perform your deep copying here.
}
#objc func copyWithZone(zone: NSZone) -> AnyObject {
return Prototype(copy: self)
}
}
I had a similar problem and came up with something that may be useful so I though i'd share it for future reference because this is one of the first places I found when searching for a solution.
As stated above, the problem is the ambiguity of the return type for the copy() function. This can be illustrated very clearly by separating the copy() -> C and copy() -> P functions:
So, assuming you define the protocol and class as follows:
protocol P
{
func copy() -> P
}
class C:P
{
func doCopy() -> C { return C() }
func copy() -> C { return doCopy() }
func copy() -> P { return doCopy() }
}
This compiles and produces the expected results when the type of the return value is explicit. Any time the compiler has to decide what the return type should be (on its own), it will find the situation ambiguous and fail for all concrete classes that implement the P protocol.
For example:
var aC:C = C() // aC is of type C
var aP:P = aC // aP is of type P (contains an instance of C)
var bC:C // this to test assignment to a C type variable
var bP:P // " " " P " "
bC = aC.copy() // OK copy()->C is used
bP = aC.copy() // Ambiguous.
// compiler could use either functions
bP = (aC as P).copy() // but this resolves the ambiguity.
bC = aP.copy() // Fails, obvious type incompatibility
bP = aP.copy() // OK copy()->P is used
In conclusion, this would work in situations where you're either, not using the base class's copy() function or you always have explicit type context.
I found that using the same function name as the concrete class made for unwieldy code everywhere, so I ended up using a different name for the protocol's copy() function.
The end result is more like:
protocol P
{
func copyAsP() -> P
}
class C:P
{
func copy() -> C
{
// there usually is a lot more code around here...
return C()
}
func copyAsP() -> P { return copy() }
}
Of course my context and functions are completely different but in spirit of the question, I tried to stay as close to the example given as possible.
Just throwing my hat into the ring here. We needed a protocol that returned an optional of the type the protocol was applied on. We also wanted the override to explicitly return the type, not just Self.
The trick is rather than using 'Self' as the return type, you instead define an associated type which you set equal to Self, then use that associated type.
Here's the old way, using Self...
protocol Mappable{
static func map() -> Self?
}
// Generated from Fix-it
extension SomeSpecificClass : Mappable{
static func map() -> Self? {
...
}
}
Here's the new way using the associated type. Note the return type is explicit now, not 'Self'.
protocol Mappable{
associatedtype ExplicitSelf = Self
static func map() -> ExplicitSelf?
}
// Generated from Fix-it
extension SomeSpecificClass : Mappable{
static func map() -> SomeSpecificClass? {
...
}
}
To add to the answers with the associatedtype way, I suggest to move the creating of the instance to a default implementation of the protocol extension. In that way the conforming classes won't have to implement it, thus sparing us from code duplication:
protocol Initializable {
init()
}
protocol Creatable: Initializable {
associatedtype Object: Initializable = Self
static func newInstance() -> Object
}
extension Creatable {
static func newInstance() -> Object {
return Object()
}
}
class MyClass: Creatable {
required init() {}
}
class MyOtherClass: Creatable {
required init() {}
}
// Any class (struct, etc.) conforming to Creatable
// can create new instances without having to implement newInstance()
let instance1 = MyClass.newInstance()
let instance2 = MyOtherClass.newInstance()
I am a swift beginner. Something puzzled me when learning. Now I want to define an abstract class or define some pure virtual method, but I cannot find a way to do it. I have a protocol with associated type(this also puzzled me, why not use generic protocol), and some methods need to be implemented in a base class, and other classes inherited from the base class, they should implement other methods in the protocol, how can I do?
for instance:
Protocol P{
typealias TypeParam
func A()
func B()
}
class BaseClass<TypeParam> : P {
abstract func A()
func B(){
if someCondition {
A()
}
}
}
class ChildClass : BaseClass<Int> {
func A(){}
}
It seems very strange, and I still cannot find a method to resolve the abstract problem.
Swift has something similar: protocol extensions
They can define default implementations so you don't have to declare the method in your base class but it also doesn't force to do that in any class, struct or enum.
protocol P {
associatedtype TypeParameter
func A()
func B()
}
extension P {
func A(){}
}
class BaseClass<TypeParam> : P {
typealias TypeParameter = TypeParam
func B(){
if someCondition {
A()
}
}
}
class ChildClass : BaseClass<Int> {
// implementation of A() is not forced since it has a default implementation
func A(){}
}
Another approach would be to use a protocol instead of BaseClass which is more in line with protocol oriented programming:
protocol Base {
associatedtype TypeParameter
func A()
func B()
}
extension Base {
func B(){
if someCondition {
A()
}
}
}
class ChildClass : Base {
typealias TypeParameter = Int
// implementation of A() is forced but B() is not forced
func A(){}
}
However one of the big disadvantages would be that a variable of protocol type can only be used in generic code (as generic constraint):
var base: Base = ChildClass() // DISALLOWED in every scope
As a workaround for this limitation you can make a wrapper type:
// wrapper type
struct AnyBase<T>: Base {
typealias TypeParameter = T
let a: () -> ()
let b: () -> ()
init<B: Base>(_ base: B) where B.TypeParameter == T {
// methods are passed by reference and could lead to reference cycles
// below is a more sophisticated way to solve also this problem
a = base.A
b = base.B
}
func A() { a() }
func B() { b() }
}
// using the wrapper:
var base = AnyBase(ChildClass()) // is of type AnyBase<Int>
Regarding the use of "true" generic protocols, the Swift team has chosen to use associatedtype because you can use many generic types without having to write all out in brackets <>.
For example Collection where you have an associated Iterator and Index type. This allows you to have specific iterators (e.g. for Dictionary and Array).
In general, generic/associated types are good for code optimization during compilation but at the same time being sometimes too static where you would have to use a generic wrapper type.
A useful link to some patterns for working with associated types.
(See also above)
A more sophisticated way to solve the problem of passing the methods by reference.
// same as `Base` but without any associated types
protocol _Base {
func A()
func B()
}
// used to store the concrete type
// or if possible let `Base` inherit from `_Base`
// (Note: `extension Base: _Base {}` is currently not possible)
struct BaseBox<B: Base>: _Base {
var base: B
init(_ b: B) { base = b}
func A() { base.A() }
func B() { base.B() }
}
struct AnyBase2<T>: Base {
typealias TypeParameter = T
var base: _Base
init<B: Base>(_ base: B) where B.TypeParameter == T {
self.base = BaseBox(base)
}
func A() { base.A() }
func B() { base.B() }
}
// using the wrapper:
var base2 = AnyBase2(ChildClass()) // is of type AnyBase2<Int>
I have a class that needs to be set with a variable of a NSObject subclass and that implements a certain protocol.
protocol ProtoTest {
var foo: Int { get set }
}
class AClass: NSObject, ProtoTest {
var foo: Int = 3
}
class BClass: NSObject, ProtoTest {
var foo: Int = 4
}
class Consumer {
var protoInstance: ProtoTest? //Does not cary any information of the class just the protocol
var protoInstance2: protocol<NSObjectProtocol, ProtoTest>?
init(x: ProtoTest) {
self.protoInstance = x
self.protoInstance2 = nil
}
init(x: protocol<NSObjectProtocol, ProtoTest>) {
self.protoInstance2 = x
self.protoInstance = nil
}
func doSomething() {
if let x = protoInstance {
x.copy() //'ProtoTest' does not have a member named 'copy'
}
if let x = protoInstance2 {
x.copy() //protocol<NSObjectProtocol, ProtoTest> does not have a member named 'copy'
}
}
}
In the example above, neither declarations of the variable are gonna work. since neither of them have any knowledge of a base class?
How do I implement this in swift ?
The usual equivalent of NSObject<Protocol> in Swift is simply Protocol. Typically, this protocol is declared as a class protocol to guarantee that it will be adopted by a class.
If you also need the NSObject protocol methods (such a respondsToSelector:, then make Protocol adopt NSObjectProtocol.
If the problem is merely that you want to call copy() and you can't persuade the compiler to let you do it, then adopt NSCopying as well (or just use respondsToSelector: and performSelector: to bypass the compiler altogether).
You can do this a couple of ways. First, you can make Consumer generic:
class Consumer<T: NSObject where T: Prototest> {
var protoInstance: T?
var protoInstance2: T?
}
If you do that, then all references to protoInstance or protoInstance2 will inherit from NSObject, and you will be able to call methods like .copy() directly on the object.
If you don't want Consumer to be generic, you can enforce restraints on the init methods using generic parameters, like this:
class Consumer {
// ...
init<T: NSObject where T: Prototest>(x: T) {
protoInstance = x
}
}
If you do that, you will be guaranteed that protoInstance will be an NSObject, but you will have to cast to NSObject to use any of NSObject's methods:
func doSomething() {
if let x = protoInstance as? NSObject {
x.copy()
}
}
Edit:
Note that I wasn't sure if you really wanted protoInstance and protoInstance2 to be of different types I was a little unclear from your question. If you do want them to be different types, I can add additional suggestions to this answer.