Can I merge a for-in and if-let in one statement?
for item in array {
if let f = item as? NSDictionary {
result.addObject(newFile(f))
}
}
array is made by a JSON, so I don't know if each item is a NSDictionary or not. I have to check.
I was looking for something like this:
for item as? NSDictionary in array {
// code
}
Like Python or Ruby.
#nickfalk is on the right track, but we can do better. His result unfortunately returns [AnyObject], which you can't then call newFile with (I assume). But that's ok, we can get the rest of the way pretty easily.
What you want is partial map. That is to say, you want to map some (but possibly not all) of the elements of one list to another list (from AnyObject to File, if we can). So there must be some rule for choosing, and some rule for mapping. Optional let's us combine those. Let's call the function that does that f. Then its type is:
f: T->U?
So there's some magic function that will possibly convert T to U. We want to map with that. Sounds easy:
extension Array {
func partialMap<U>(f: T->U?) -> [U] {
var result = [U]()
for x in self {
if let u = f(x) {
result.append(u)
}
}
return result
}
}
So now we've hidden all the nasty mutation and var and whatnot down deep where we don't have to look at it. We have a function that takes a mapping function from "something" to "maybe something else" and returns a list of "something elses that we could map."
Now everything is nice and immutable and reusable:
let result = array.partialMap { ($0 as? NSDictionary).map(newFile) }
Whoa there. What's that map in the middle? Well, as? returns NSDictionary?. When you map an optional, then if the optional is None, it returns None, otherwise it applies the function to the value and wraps it in Some. So this whole thing takes AnyObject and returns File? just like we wanted. One partialMap later we have our answer.
I would probably just go for something like:
let result = array.filter() { $0 is NSDictionary }
If you need result to be an NSDictionary array, you can just cast it:
let result = array.filter() { $0 is NSDictionary } as [NSDictionary]
If your goal is to reduce an NSArray to an array only containing NSDictionary filter is a very powerful tool. Create the appropriate filtering function:
func filterForNSDictionary(object: AnyObject) -> Bool{
return object.isKindOfClass(NSDictionary)
}
Then simply pass in you array and function to the filter function
let result = filter(array, filterForNSDictionary)
As #RobNapier points out my solution above will end up with a result array being of the type [AnyObject] this can of course easily be remedied:
let result = filter(array, filterForNSDictionary) as [NSDictionary]
This could be considered risky, if you force the array to be of the wrong type. as [NSString] (for instance9 would most likely blow up in your face down the line...
Rob's solution being pure awesome cleverness of course and #MattGibson delivering the perfect shorthand, while exposing me as an absolute beginner in this field.
Related
Trying to make this common swift pattern more functional.
for object in objects.allObjects {
guard let _object = object as? SomeTypeOfObject else { continue }
_object.subObject(subObject, objectStateChanged: changedState)
}
I'd love to use something like "any" (instead of map) to get rid of the for loop - like in Kotlin - but that dose not seem to be possible in Swift.
Trying to figure out a way to include the guard in the functional representation of this block.
Feels like I'm missing something. Am I?
Thanks
A common functional pattern is to compactMap and then call the method with side-effect in a forEach. This eliminates the guard entirely:
objects.allObjects // Add `.lazy` if you don’t want to build the intermediary array
.compactMap { $0 as? SomeTypeOfObject }
.forEach { $0.subObject(subObject, objectStateChanged: changedState) }
This question already has answers here:
For-in loop and type casting only for objects which match type
(2 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I'd like to know if it is possible to iterate over an array is swift and check if the current element has a certain type.
A use case would be : I have an array with NSDictionarys and NSArrays and I ony want to take care of the NSDictionarys.
I'd like to do this without the condition inside the loop :
for entity in array
{
if entity is NSDictionary
{
// Do something
}
}
I'm looking for something like :
for (entity in array) as? NSDictionary
{
// Do something
}
Of course I know that what I have just written doesn't work, but I guess you can get the idea of what I'm asking for.
Any idea would be really appreciated !
Solution 1
You can filter your array
let things = [NSDictionary(), NSArray(), NSDictionary(), NSArray()]
let dicts = things.flatMap { $0 as? NSDictionary }
Now dicts is defined as [NSDictionary] an contains only the 2 dictionaries.
Solution 2
You can also perform a for loop only on the values that are dictionaries
let things = [NSDictionary(), NSArray(), NSDictionary(), NSArray()]
for dict in things.flatMap( { $0 as? NSDictionary }) {
}
Using filter with the type check operator is
As an alternative to the flatMap solutions, you may use filter along with the type check operator is:
let arr: [AnyObject] = [NSDictionary(), ["foo", "bar"], NSDictionary(), "foo"]
for dict in arr.filter({ $0 is NSDictionary }) {
// do something with dictionary
}
Use the type check operator (is) to check whether an instance is of
a certain subclass type. The type check operator returns true if the
instance is of that subclass type and false if it is not.
From Swift Language Guide - Type Casting. Since you don't have to worry about subclass matches (you know the elements to be either NSDictionary or NSArray) the is filter approach can be an appropriate alternative here.
Note that when using the flatMap and type cast operator (as), the iterate element in the for loop (dict) will be of type NSDictionary, whereas the filter approach above will perform no downcasting, hence preserving the NSDictionary in its wrapped form, as AnyObject. Probably the flatMap approach is to prefer here.
If you don't care for elements to have the same indexes as in original array, you can flatMap to the required type.
for element in array.flatMap({ $0 as? NSDictionary }) {
// do something
}
I am playing with Arrays in playground and I am bit confused. Here is code:
var players = ["tob", "cindy", "mindy"] //["tob", "cindy", "mindy"]
print(players.isEmpty) // False
var currentPlayer = players.first // "tob"
print(currentPlayer) // "Optional("tob")\n"
Why does it says "Optional"?
I found explanation: "The property first actually returns an optional, because if the array were empty, first would return nil."
But it is not empty. .isEmpty //false, So I am not understanding this.
Thanks for help in advance.
The correct way to think of Optional is that this may or may not have a value. What is the first element of an empty list? There is no such thing. It is not a value. We call that lack of a value nil or .None.
In Swift a variable must have a specific type. So your example:
let currentPlayer = players.first
What is the type of currentPlayer? It may be a String, or it may be nothing at all. It is a "maybe string" and in Swift that's called an Optional<String>. Whether players has elements or doesn't have elements doesn't change the type of currentPlayer.
If you want to do something if-and-only-if the variable has a value, then there are many ways. The simplest is if-let.
let players = ["tob", "cindy", "mindy"] //["tob", "cindy", "mindy"]
print(players.isEmpty) // False
if let currentPlayer = players.first {
print(currentPlayer)
}
This will print tob as you're expecting.
Another very common approach is the guard let
let players = ["tob", "cindy", "mindy"] //["tob", "cindy", "mindy"]
guard let currentPlayer = players.first else { return }
print(currentPlayer)
This lets you avoid nesting the rest of your function inside of curly braces, but otherwise is the same approach.
It is possible to convert an Optional into its underlying type using !, but this is very dangerous and should be avoided except where absolutely necessary. Tools like if-let and guard-let (and also Optional.map) are almost always preferred.
But the key here is to understand that all Swift variables have a single type, and sometimes that type is "maybe it has a value, maybe it doesn't."
If we look at the description of first, we will see that it always returns optional type:
public var first: Self.Generator.Element? { get }
I would like to learn and use more functional programming in Swift. So, I've been trying various things in playground. I don't understand Reduce, though. The basic textbook examples work, but I can't get my head around this problem.
I have an array of strings called "toDoItems". I would like to get the longest string in this array. What is the best practice for handling the initial nil value in such cases? I think this probably happens often. I thought of writing a custom function and use it.
func optionalMax(maxSofar: Int?, newElement: Int) -> Int {
if let definiteMaxSofar = maxSofar {
return max(definiteMaxSofar, newElement)
}
return newElement
}
// Just testing - nums is an array of Ints. Works.
var maxValueOfInts = nums.reduce(0) { optionalMax($0, $1) }
// ERROR: cannot invoke 'reduce' with an argument list of type ‘(nil, (_,_)->_)'
var longestOfStrings = toDoItems.reduce(nil) { optionalMax(count($0), count($1)) }
It might just be that Swift does not automatically infer the type of your initial value. Try making it clear by explicitly declaring it:
var longestOfStrings = toDoItems.reduce(nil as Int?) { optionalMax($0, count($1)) }
By the way notice that I do not count on $0 (your accumulator) since it is not a String but an optional Int Int?
Generally to avoid confusion reading the code later, I explicitly label the accumulator as a and the element coming in from the serie as x:
var longestOfStrings = toDoItems.reduce(nil as Int?) { a, x in optionalMax(a, count(x)) }
This way should be clearer than $0 and $1 in code when the accumulator or the single element are used.
Hope this helps
Initialise it with an empty string "" rather than nil. Or you could even initialise it with the first element of the array, but an empty string seems better.
Second go at this after writing some wrong code, this will return the longest string if you are happy with an empty string being returned for an empty array:
toDoItems.reduce("") { count($0) > count($1) ? $0 : $1 }
Or if you want nil, use
toDoItems.reduce(nil as String?) { count($0!) > count($1) ? $0 : $1 }
The problem is that the compiler cannot infer the types you are using for your seed and accumulator closure if you seed with nil, and you also need to get the optional type correct when using the optional string as $0.
My current function filters the array and returns an array of PFObjects with only "Type" = "Sushi". Now, I am trying to filter the array if current time is within a time range ("OpenHours" and "CloseHours")
The new Function passes dayOfWeek: Int, timeNow: String
"OpenHours" Example: [0, 6] = [sunday, monday]
["0011","0011","0011","0011","0011","0011","0011"]
"CloseHours" Example:
["2350","2350","2350","2350","2350","2350","2350"]
Current Function that filters "Type":
func filterRestaurants(filteredObject: String) {
//func filterOpenNow(dayOfWeek: Int, timeNow: String){
filteredRestaurantArray = unfilteredRestaurantArray.filter() {
if let type = ($0 as PFObject)["Type"] as? String { // Get value of PFObject
return type.rangeOfString("Sushi") != nil
} else {
println("nope")
return false
}
}
Basically I need to filter for objects where current time timeNow is between OpenHours and CloseHours for a given dayOfWeek
Edit:
What I've Tried so far:
I'm unsure how to get the position of a value in the PFObject array. Normal I would check if the timeNow is between OpenNow[dayOfWeek] and CloseNow[dayOfWeek]
Something like this (except with filter):
if OpenNow[dayOfWeek] ... CloseNow[dayOfWeek] ~= timeNow {
println("success")
}
I am not entirely sure what the properties of your PFObject instance are, so I'm going to make some assumptions and you will have to correct the keys to meet your needs.
Working with the function signature you provided is not entirely possible. This is because in order for it to work you would be accessing a list of PFObjects that were not provided to the function. While Swift does not keep you from doing that, it is generally not a wise design choice as you cannot be confident of the results of the function at any given point in time. So, to provide what is called referential transparency we will modify your function to also take in the collection of PFObjects.
With that collection we will then use the native filter function to determine which ones to return from the function. The filter function takes a collection and a closure. The closure takes one parameter, an element of the collection, and return a Bool. The closure is what determines if an element is kept or discarded.
Knowing that, we can build up the functionality you requested. I cannot guarantee there isn't a better way to do the first if let dance at the beginning, but it should get the job done.
func filterAreOpen(restaurants: [PFObject], forTime time: String, onDay day: Int) -> [PFObject] {
let openRests = filter(restaurants) { r in
if let openHours = r["OpenHours"] as AnyObject? as? [String] {
if let closeHours = r["CloseHours"] as AnyObject? as? [String] {
switch (openHours[day].toInt(), closeHours[day].toInt(), time.toInt()) {
case let (.Some(oh), .Some(ch), .Some(t)):
return oh...ch ~= t
default:
return false
}
}
}
return false
}
return openRests
}
And you would use it like this
let rests = [ // example objects that are replaced by your PFObject instances
[
"OpenHours":["0011","0012","0013"],
"CloseHours":["0023","0023","0023"],
"Name":"Restaurant1"
],
[
"OpenHours":["0014","0015","0016"],
"CloseHours":["0020","0020","0020"],
"Name":"Restaurant2"
]
]
let openRestaurants = filterAreOpen(rests, forTime: "0012", onDay: 1)
/* Results
[{
CloseHours = (
0023,
0023,
0023
);
Name = Restaurant1;
OpenHours = (
0011,
0012,
0013
);
}]
*/
Edit:
A quick explanation about the switch inside the closure. In Swift the switch statement is much more powerful than it was in the Objective-C days. It is capable of matching a value against a pattern, not just numbers.
So, in this case, the switch is matching a 3-tuple of Int?, (Int?, Int?, Int?). This is because String's toInt() method returns an Int?. switch is also able to bind matched patterns to local scoped constants. To do that we use the let keyword. To pattern match on an Optional value, you use the .Some(x) pattern. Since we have a 3-tuple we use .Some(x) three time, with the x replaced by some meaningful name. This way we have access to the three values we are interested in if the three toInt() calls evaluated to non-nil values.
If any of the String values could not evaluate to an Int, and so was nil, the default case is used, and returns false.
You can view the language book on conditional statements here.