I'm trying to extend Dictionary but can't reference self with a key. I'm confused as to why this is.
extension Dictionary {
func foo() {
var result = self["key"]
}
}
I get this error :
Type 'DictionaryIndex' does not conform to protocol 'StringLiteralConvertible'
If anyone has any insight, it would be appreciated.
Dictionary is a Generic struct. It is generic on its Key and Value.
Thus in your extension you have to use Key as the type for the dictionary keys, and Value as the type for dictionary values.
The compiler is complaining because you are using the wrong type for the dictionary key extension.
Here is an example:
extension Dictionary {
func ext(key: Key) {
if let value = self[key] {
// use your value
println("Key is present")
} else {
println("No value for key")
}
}
}
let dic = ["A": 20]
dic.ext("A")
dic.ext("B")
Here is how you can do something similar ... it might make clearer why your test didn't work:
extension Dictionary {
var foo: String? {
if let key = "key" as? Key {
return self[key] as? String
}
return nil
}
}
let dic1 = ["A": "an A", "key": "the value"]
dic1.foo // "the value" as optional
dic.foo // nil since dic value type is Int
Since Dictionary is a generic struct, you might reconsider extending it as if it is a specific concrete type.
Related
This is something that has vexed a number of developers including myself. Let say we have a protocol that defines a subscript which we apply to a simple class.
protocol Cache {
subscript<Value>(_: String) -> Value? { get set }
}
class InMemoryCache: Cache {
private var cache: [String: Any] = [:]
subscript<Value>(key: String) -> Value? {
get {
cache[key] as? Value
}
set {
if let value = newValue {
cache[key] = value
} else {
cache.remove(key)
}
}
}
}
This works fine as long as we know the types:
cache["abc"] = 5
let x: Int? = cache["abc"]
but the developers want to do this:
cache["abc"] = nil
Which won't compile because the compiler cannot determine the Value generic type. This works however
cache["abc"] = nil as String?
I've tried a number of things but they all have drawbacks. Things like adding a second subscript with the Any type. Nothing seems to work well even though it would seem like a simple problem.
Has anyone found a solution that handles cache["abc"] = nil?
You can do this by changing your protocol requirements somewhat.
Have the protocol require a subscript that does not use generics, and returns an Any?.
protocol Cache {
subscript(key: String) -> Any? { get set }
}
This subscript will let you do the following:
cache["abc"] = 5
cache["abc"] = nil
let value = cache["abc"] // value is an `Any?`
but it will not let you do this:
let number: Int? = cache["abc"] // error
So, let's fix that by adding another subscript to Cache. This subscript is equivalent to your original subscript requirement, except it doesn't need a setter and will call the other subscript (the one required by the protocol):
extension Cache {
subscript<Value>(key: String) -> Value? {
self[key] as? Value
}
}
(If you're worried that this subscript calls itself, don't be. self[key] here actually calls the other subscript, not this one. You can confirm this in Xcode by command-clicking on the [ or the ] in self[key] to jump to the definition of the other subscript.)
Then, implement the required subscript in your class:
class InMemoryCache: Cache {
private var cache: [String: Any] = [:]
subscript(key: String) -> Any? {
get { cache[key] }
set { cache[key] = newValue }
}
}
This will allow all of the following to compile:
let cache = InMemoryCache()
cache["abc"] = 5
let x: Int? = cache["abc"]
cache["abc"] = nil
There is a workaround to have your desire output.
Because this is a dictionary so you get assign nil directly in your InMemoryCache
class InMemoryCache: Cache {
private var cache: [String: Any] = [:]
subscript<Value>(key: String) -> Value? {
get {
cache[key] as? Value
}
set {
if let value = newValue {
cache[key] = value
} else {
cache[key] = nil // make nil directly here
}
}
}
}
In here because of Value is a generic type. So you can not assign nil directly. It must have a specific type.
Instead you can do like this
let nilValue : Int? = nil // any type nil you want
cache["abc"] = nilValue
or directly cast it to nil of any tupe before assign to dictionary
cache["abc"] = (nil as String?)
It will refresh anything value is store in the key.
Example
// value
let nilValue : Int? = nil
var number : Int? = nil
var string : String? = nil
cache["abc"] = 5
number = cache["abc"] // Optional.some(5)
cache["abc"] = "abc"
number = cache["abc"] // nil
string = cache["abc"] // Optional.some("abc")
cache["abc"] = nilValue
number = cache["abc"] // nil
string = cache["abc"] // nil
The reason why you are having a hard time with this is because
cache["abc"] = nil
cannot be compiled. There is not enough information to infer the generic type of the subscript - or of the optional value. The compiler sees something like
cache<?>["abc"] = Optional<?>.none
How is it supposed to figure out what to put in place of the question marks?
There's another ambiguity. Your cache can contain any type, even Optional. When you are assigning nil to the subscript, how does anybody know if you want to remove the element or store an instance of Optional<Something>.none at the subscript?
When I find myself fighting the language in this way, I usually try to take a step back and ask if I am perhaps doing something fundamentally bad. I think, in this case, the answer is yes. You are trying to pretend something is more strictly typed than it really is.
I think your getter/setter should explicitly take a value that is of type Any. It works better and it has the advantage that it explicitly documents for the user that a Cache conforming type can store anything in it.
For this reason, I would say TylerP's solution is the best. However, I would not create a subscript in the extension, I would define a function
extension Cache
{
func value<Value>(at key: String) -> Value?
{
self[key] as? Value
}
}
The reason for this is that the compiler can get confused when you have multiple subscripts with similar signatures. With the extension above, I can conform Dictionary<String, Any> to the protocol and not need a new class.
extension Dictionary: Cache where Key == String, Value == Any {}
var dict: [String : Any] = [:]
dict["abc"] = 5
let y: Int? = dict.value(at: "abc")
dict["abc"] = nil
Obviously, the above won't be useful to you if you need reference semantics for your cache.
TylerP's solution was pretty much bang on the money. For completeness though, here's what the code now looks like:
protocol Cache {
/// Handles when we need a value of a specific type.
subscript<Value>(_: String) -> Value? { get }
/// Handles getting and setting any value.
/// The getter is rarely used because the generic getter above
/// is used. Setting a value compiles because we don't care what
/// type is it. Setting a `nil` also compiles for the same reason.
subscript(_: String) -> Any? { get set }
}
class InMemoryCache: Cache {
private var cache: [String: Any] = [:]
subscript(key: String) -> Any? {
get { cache[key] }
set {
if let value = newValue {
cache[key] = value
} else {
remove(key)
}
}
}
subscript<Value>(key: String) -> Value? {
cache[key] as? Value
}
}
I am getting a error from Xcode like this Subscript 'subscript(_:)' requires that 'T' conform to 'RangeExpression' when I use this code below:
func test<T>(key: T) where T: Hashable {
let dic: Dictionary<String, String> = ["1": "a"]
if let unwrappedValue = dic[key] {
print(unwrappedValue)
}
}
I really do not see any reason that Xcode should complain! Because the Apple documentation says:
#frozen public struct Dictionary<Key, Value> where Key : Hashable { ...
So as you can see in my code, I gave what should be done! So why am I receiving this error?!
The error message isn't great, but the issue is that T isn't related to the Key type of your dic (which is always String).
Your function is generic over any unbounded T, which allows a caller to pass non-String values to key, which wouldn't be compatible with your dic.
You either need to make your dictionary generic, or your function non-generic.
Here is the working code:
func test(key: String) {
let dic: Dictionary<String, String> = ["1": "a"]
if let unwrappedValue = dic[key] {
print(unwrappedValue)
}
}
I have the following code in a playground file:
extension Dictionary {
func test() {
for key in self.keys {
self[key]
}
}
}
var dict: [String: AnyObject?] = [
"test": nil
]
dict.test()
I will henceforth refer to the line within the for-each loop as the output since it is what's relevant. In this particular instance the output is nil.
When I change the for-each loop to look like this:
for key in self.keys {
print(self[key])
}
The output is "Optional(nil)\n".
What I really want to do is check the value for nil, but the code:
for key in self.keys {
self[key] == nil
}
outputs false.
One other thing I tried was the following:
for key in self.keys {
self[key] as! AnyObject? == nil
}
which produces the error:
Could not cast value of type 'Swift.Optional<Swift.AnyObject>' to 'Swift.AnyObject'
Any help with this is much appreciated!
You've gotten yourself into kind a mess, because a dictionary whose values can be nil presents you with the prospect of a double-wrapped Optional, and therefore two kinds of nil. There is the nil that you get if the key is missing, and then the nil that you get if the key is not missing and you unwrap the fetched result. And unfortunately, you're testing in a playground, which is a poor venue for exploring the distinction.
To see what I mean, consider just the following:
var d : [String:Int?] = ["Matt":1]
let val = d["Matt"]
What is the type of val? It's Int?? - an Int wrapped in an Optional wrapped in another Optional. That's because the value inside the dictionary was, by definition, an Int wrapped in an Optional, and then fetching the value by its key wraps that in another Optional.
So now let's go a bit further and do it this way:
var d : [String:Int?] = ["Matt":nil]
let val = d["Matt"]
What is val? Well, the playground may say it is nil, but the truth is more complicated; it's nil wrapped in another Optional. That is easiest to see if you print val, in which case you get, not nil, but "Optional(nil)".
But if we try for something where the key isn't there at all, we get a different answer:
let val2 = d["Alex"]
That really is nil, signifying that the key is missing. And if we print val2, we get "nil". The playground fails to make the distinction (it says nil for both val and val2), but converting to a String (which is what print does) shows the difference.
So part of the problem is this whole double-wrapped Optional thing, and the other part is that the Playground represents a double-wrapped Optional in a very misleading way.
MORAL 1: A dictionary whose value type is an Optional can get really tricky.
MORAL 2: Playgrounds are the work of the devil. Avoid them. Use a real app, and use logging to the console, or the variables pane of the debugger, to see what's really happening.
Checking if a dictionary value is nil makes sense only if the
dictionary values are an Optional type, which means that you have to
restrict your extension method to that case.
This is possible by defining a protocol that all optional types conform
to (compare How can I write a function that will unwrap a generic property in swift assuming it is an optional type?, which is just a slight modification of Creating an extension to filter nils from an Array in Swift):
protocol OptionalType {
typealias Wrapped
var asOptional : Wrapped? { get }
}
extension Optional : OptionalType {
var asOptional : Wrapped? {
return self
}
}
Now you can define an extension method with is restricted to
dictionaries of optional value types:
extension Dictionary where Value : OptionalType {
func test() {
for key in self.keys { ... }
}
}
As Matt already explained, self[key] can only be nil if that key
is missing in the dictionary, and that can not happen here. So you
can always retrieve the value for that key
let value = self[key]!
inside that loop. Better, enumerate over keys and values:
for (key, value) in self { ... }
Now value is the dictionary value (for key), and its type
conforms to OptionalType. Using the asOptional protocol property
you get an optional which can be tested against nil:
if value.asOptional == nil { ... }
or used with optional binding.
Putting all that together:
extension Dictionary where Value : OptionalType {
func test() {
for (key, value) in self {
if let unwrappedValue = value.asOptional {
print("Unwrapped value for '\(key)' is '\(unwrappedValue)'")
} else {
print("Value for '\(key)' is nil")
}
}
}
}
Example:
var dict: [String: AnyObject?] = [
"foo" : "bar",
"test": nil
]
dict.test()
Output:
Value for 'test' is nil
Unwrapped value for 'foo' is 'bar'
I have the following code in a playground file:
extension Dictionary {
func test() {
for key in self.keys {
self[key]
}
}
}
var dict: [String: AnyObject?] = [
"test": nil
]
dict.test()
I will henceforth refer to the line within the for-each loop as the output since it is what's relevant. In this particular instance the output is nil.
When I change the for-each loop to look like this:
for key in self.keys {
print(self[key])
}
The output is "Optional(nil)\n".
What I really want to do is check the value for nil, but the code:
for key in self.keys {
self[key] == nil
}
outputs false.
One other thing I tried was the following:
for key in self.keys {
self[key] as! AnyObject? == nil
}
which produces the error:
Could not cast value of type 'Swift.Optional<Swift.AnyObject>' to 'Swift.AnyObject'
Any help with this is much appreciated!
You've gotten yourself into kind a mess, because a dictionary whose values can be nil presents you with the prospect of a double-wrapped Optional, and therefore two kinds of nil. There is the nil that you get if the key is missing, and then the nil that you get if the key is not missing and you unwrap the fetched result. And unfortunately, you're testing in a playground, which is a poor venue for exploring the distinction.
To see what I mean, consider just the following:
var d : [String:Int?] = ["Matt":1]
let val = d["Matt"]
What is the type of val? It's Int?? - an Int wrapped in an Optional wrapped in another Optional. That's because the value inside the dictionary was, by definition, an Int wrapped in an Optional, and then fetching the value by its key wraps that in another Optional.
So now let's go a bit further and do it this way:
var d : [String:Int?] = ["Matt":nil]
let val = d["Matt"]
What is val? Well, the playground may say it is nil, but the truth is more complicated; it's nil wrapped in another Optional. That is easiest to see if you print val, in which case you get, not nil, but "Optional(nil)".
But if we try for something where the key isn't there at all, we get a different answer:
let val2 = d["Alex"]
That really is nil, signifying that the key is missing. And if we print val2, we get "nil". The playground fails to make the distinction (it says nil for both val and val2), but converting to a String (which is what print does) shows the difference.
So part of the problem is this whole double-wrapped Optional thing, and the other part is that the Playground represents a double-wrapped Optional in a very misleading way.
MORAL 1: A dictionary whose value type is an Optional can get really tricky.
MORAL 2: Playgrounds are the work of the devil. Avoid them. Use a real app, and use logging to the console, or the variables pane of the debugger, to see what's really happening.
Checking if a dictionary value is nil makes sense only if the
dictionary values are an Optional type, which means that you have to
restrict your extension method to that case.
This is possible by defining a protocol that all optional types conform
to (compare How can I write a function that will unwrap a generic property in swift assuming it is an optional type?, which is just a slight modification of Creating an extension to filter nils from an Array in Swift):
protocol OptionalType {
typealias Wrapped
var asOptional : Wrapped? { get }
}
extension Optional : OptionalType {
var asOptional : Wrapped? {
return self
}
}
Now you can define an extension method with is restricted to
dictionaries of optional value types:
extension Dictionary where Value : OptionalType {
func test() {
for key in self.keys { ... }
}
}
As Matt already explained, self[key] can only be nil if that key
is missing in the dictionary, and that can not happen here. So you
can always retrieve the value for that key
let value = self[key]!
inside that loop. Better, enumerate over keys and values:
for (key, value) in self { ... }
Now value is the dictionary value (for key), and its type
conforms to OptionalType. Using the asOptional protocol property
you get an optional which can be tested against nil:
if value.asOptional == nil { ... }
or used with optional binding.
Putting all that together:
extension Dictionary where Value : OptionalType {
func test() {
for (key, value) in self {
if let unwrappedValue = value.asOptional {
print("Unwrapped value for '\(key)' is '\(unwrappedValue)'")
} else {
print("Value for '\(key)' is nil")
}
}
}
}
Example:
var dict: [String: AnyObject?] = [
"foo" : "bar",
"test": nil
]
dict.test()
Output:
Value for 'test' is nil
Unwrapped value for 'foo' is 'bar'
I'm trying to create an extension on mutable dictionaries of types [NSObject:AnyObject]
Here is the syntax for an immutable dictionary extension in Swift for [NSObject:AnyObject]:
extension Dictionary where Key:NSObject, Value:AnyObject {
func addSomething() {
// Fails
self["ExampleKey"] = "ExampleValue"
}
}
However, in this case self cannot be appended to, because the extension works on immutable dictionaries. The question is what syntax is missing in order to make an extension for exclusively mutable dictionaries.
Edit: Updated to address ambiguity
Update:
By adding the mutating prefix to addSomething, I can operate on only mutable dictionarys. Yay! However, the function still is not working
mutating func addSomething() {
// Error: Cannot subscript a value of type 'Dictionary<Key, Value>' with an index of type 'String'
self["ExampleKey"] = "ExampleValue"
}
If I cast "ExampleKey" to a Key, I get another error:
mutating func addSomething() {
let key = "ExampleKey" as! Key
// Error: Ambiguous reference to member 'subscript'
self[key] = "ExampleValue"
}
Still researching how to get this simple addition to work...
This works
extension Dictionary where Key:NSObject, Value:AnyObject {
mutating func addSomething(forKey key:Key, value: Value) {
self[key] = value
}
}
var dict = [NSString:NSString]()
dict.addSomething(forKey: "test", value: "some test")
For Swift 3+ I'm using this extension:
extension Dictionary where Key == String, Value == Any {
mutating func set(value optionalValue: Any?, forKey key: String) {
guard let value = optionalValue else { return }
self[key] = value
}
}
Cheers!