I have a generic class that can be initialised as any type. I would like to add a function with a single parameter that takes a value that is both of the class's generic type and conforms to the Comparable protocol. Type conformance should be enforced pre-compile.
I would like to do something like this:
class Object<T> {
let value: T!
init (value: T) {
self.value = value
}
func doSomething<U where U: Comparable, U == T>(otherValue: U) {
// do something
}
}
Is this possible to do?
Unfortunately, no. You can't further specialize a generic type in a method - you'd need to add a top-level function for the behavior you want.
This is the reason Array doesn't have a pure myArray.sort() function, since there's no way to guarantee that the members of any Array instance will be Comparable. Instead, there's a top-level function with this signature:
func sort<T : Comparable>(inout array: [T])
Your top-level function would have a similar structure:
func doSomething<T: Comparable)(obj: Object<T>, otherValue: T) {
// ...
}
For reference, this is possible since Swift 2.0:
extension Object where T : Comparable {
func doSomething(otherValue: T) {
// do something
}
}
Related
I'm am trying to implement a protocol method that has a generic argument, but then use the generic type for my entire class instead of just on the method, something like this
protocol FirstProtocol {
}
protocol SecondProtocol {
func foo<T: FirstProtocol>(argument: T)
}
class MyType<T: FirstProtocol>: SecondProtocol {
var value: T? = nil
func foo<T>(argument: T) {
value = argument // ERROR: Cannot assign value of type 'T' to type 'T?'
}
}
So the swift compiler accepts that foo<T>(argument:T) matches the method of SecondProtocol, if I comment out the error line it compiles fine, but it will not let me assign argument to value even though value and argument should be the same type, the compiler complains as if they are different types.
The type of argument and value are indeed different types. The T generic parameter in foo is just an identifier, and I can change it to anything else:
class MyType<T: FirstProtocol>: SecondProtocol {
var value: T? = nil
func foo<AnythingElse>(argument: AnythingElse) {
// MyType still conforms to SecondProtocol
}
}
The T in foo is a brand new generic parameter, different from the T in MyType. They just so happens to have the same name.
Note that when you declare a generic method, it's the caller that decides what the generic type is, not the generic method. What foo is trying to say here is "I want the T in foo to be the same type as the T in MyType", but it can't say that about its own generic parameters!
One way to fix it is to make SecondProtocol have an associated type:
protocol SecondProtocol {
// name this properly!
associatedtype SomeType: FirstProtocol
func foo(argument: SomeType)
}
class MyType<T: FirstProtocol>: SecondProtocol {
typealias SomeType = T // here is where it says "I want 'SomeType' to be the same type as 'T'!"
var value: T? = nil
func foo(argument: T) {
value = argument
}
}
it will not let me assign argument to value even though value and argument should be the same type, the compiler complains as if they are different types.
think about this case:
class A: FirstProtocol {
}
class B: FirstProtocol {
}
class A and B is the acceptable generic type for func foo(argument: T){}, but can you assign an instance of class A to class B?
class MyType<T: FirstProtocol>: SecondProtocol
remove ": FirstProtocol"should work, or use a base class to replace FirstProtocol
Protocols in Swift can declare the init() method in their definition. However, I can't think of any use case where this solves any problem other than forcing the conforming classes to define the init() as in the protocol. We can call the declared methods on the protocol type but init on protocol cannot be used to instantiate its object, which is its only purpose.
What problem does declaring init() method in a protocol solve?
I think the real utility comes when it's used as a constraint in a generic class o function. This is real code from one of my projects.
I declare a protocol with a init:
protocol JSONCreatable {
init(fromJson json: JSON)
}
Then, in a generic function where I return a class that conforms to that protocol:
import SwiftyJSON
extension JSON {
func asObject<T>() -> T? where T: JSONCreatable {
if isEmpty {
return nil
}
return T(fromJson: self)
}
func asArray<T>() -> [T] where T: JSONCreatable {
return array?.map{ json in T(fromJson: json) } ?? []
}
}
This allows me to do things like this:
let user: User = json["user"].asObject()
let results: [Element] = json["elements"].asArray()
It forces class to have init(data: data) from some data, example:
protocol JSONable {
init(data: JSON)
}
forces all classes, that are JSONable to have an initialiser from JSON, so you are always sure, that you can create an instance from JSON.
It's commonly used in order to allow for protocol extensions and generic placeholders constrained to protocols to call the initialiser on the given concrete type that conforms to the protocol. For example, consider RangeReplaceableCollection's default implementation of init<S : Sequence>(_ elements: S):
extension RangeReplaceableCollection {
// ...
/// Creates a new instance of a collection containing the elements of a
/// sequence.
///
/// - Parameter elements: The sequence of elements for the new collection.
public init<S : Sequence>(_ elements: S) where S.Iterator.Element == Iterator.Element {
self.init()
append(contentsOf: elements)
}
// ...
}
Without init() being defined as a protocol requirement of RangeReplaceableCollection, there's no way for the extension to know that we can call init() in order to create a new instance of the conforming type.
But it can also be used directly outside of generics and extensions – for example, it can be used to construct a new instance represented by a given existential metatype (the metatype of 'some concrete type that conforms to a protocol'):
protocol P {
init()
}
struct S : P {
init() {}
}
let s: P = S()
let s1 = type(of: s).init() // creates a new instance of S, statically typed as P.
In this example:
type(of: s) returns the dynamic type of s as P.Type (an existential metatype), as s is statically typed as P. Remember that type(of:) is a (T) -> T.Type operation.
init() constructs a new instance of the underlying concrete type, in this case S.
The new instance is statically typed as P (i.e boxed in an existential container).
I have protocol and his implementation written in Swift:
protocol P {
}
struct A: P {
}
Protocol is used as generic type for some function:
func foo<T: P>(param: T) {
}
func foo() {
foo(param: A())
}
Until now everything works properly. But I would like to set A() as a default parameter of given function:
func foo<T: P>(param: T = A()) {
}
Unfortunately with following error:
Default argument value of type 'A' cannot be converted to type 'T'.
Or
func foo<T: P>(param: T = A() as P) {
}
,
let a: P = A()
func foo<T: P>(param: T = a) {
}
Returns:
Default argument value of type 'P' cannot be converted to type 'T'
Or
func foo<T: P>(param: T = A() as T) {
}
Returns:
'A' is not convertible to 'T'; did you mean to use 'as!' to force downcast?
What I'm doing wrong? Where is the problem?
I do not want to use force cast like this:
func foo<T: P>(param: T = A() as! T) {
}
Thank you in advance.
You're trying to enforce a non-generic default argument in a generic function: you should probably think over what you're trying to achieve here.
For the sake of the discussion, you could include an attempted cast of A() to T in your function signature, but you'd need to change the argument type to optional to allow failed conversion (nil), e.g.
func foo<T: P>(param: T? = (A() as? T)) { }
A more sound alternative is including - in addition to your generic function - a concrete non-generic function for instances where T is A (concrete functions will take precedence over generic ones), in which case you can include the default argument of A() in the function signature of the concrete function. E.g.
protocol P { }
struct A: P { }
extension Int: P { }
func foo<T: P>(param: T) { print("called generic foo") }
func foo(param: A = A()) { print("called A specific foo") }
foo() // called A specific foo (making use of default arg)
foo(A()) // called A specific foo
foo(1) // called generic foo
Note that the non-generic foo is called even though A conforms to P (A could've made use of the generic foo): there's no conflict here as the concrete function takes precedence.
If you, on the other hand, just want your generic function to allow calling without the single argument (i.e., making use of a default argument), you can include a blueprint of a simple initializer in P, allowing you to initialize an instance of the generic type as default argument; see #Sulthan:s answer.
The only thing you need is to add a requirement for an initializer to the protocol:
protocol P {
init()
}
struct A: P {
var x: Int
init() {
x = 10
}
}
func foo<T: P>(param param: T = T()) {
}
However, you will have another problem. The type of the passed parameter decides the type of the generic so you will have to specify the generic type somehow else.
I am trying to figure out how to define a function which takes the following
two parameters:
A protocol.
An instance of a class (a reference type) conforming to that protocol.
For example, given
protocol P { }
class C : P { } // Class, conforming to P
class D { } // Class, not conforming to P
struct E: P { } // Struct, conforming to P
this should compile:
register(proto: P.self, obj: C()) // (1)
but these should not compile:
register(proto: P.self, obj: D()) // (2) D does not conform to P
register(proto: P.self, obj: E()) // (3) E is not a class
It is easy if we drop the condition that the second parameter is a class instance:
func register<T>(proto: T.Type, obj: T) {
// ...
}
but this would accept the struct (value type) in (3) as well.
This looked promising and compiles
func register<T: AnyObject>(proto: T.Type, obj: T) {
// ...
}
but then none of (1), (2), (3) compile anymore, e.g.
register(proto: P.self, obj: C()) // (1)
// error: cannot invoke 'register' with an argument list of type '(P.Protocol, obj: C)'
I assume that the reason for the compiler error is the same as in
Protocol doesn't conform to itself?.
Another failed attempt is
func register<T>(proto: T.Type, obj: protocol<T, AnyObject>) { }
// error: non-protocol type 'T' cannot be used within 'protocol<...>'
A viable alternative would be a function which takes as parameters
A class protocol.
An instance of a type conforming to that protocol.
Here the problem is how to restrict the first parameter such that only
class protocols are accepted.
Background: I recently stumbled over the
SwiftNotificationCenter
project which implements a protocol-oriented, type safe notification mechanism.
It has a
register
method which looks like this:
public class NotificationCenter {
public static func register<T>(protocolType: T.Type, observer: T) {
guard let object = observer as? AnyObject else {
fatalError("expecting reference type but found value type: \(observer)")
}
// ...
}
// ...
}
The observers are then stored as weak references, and that's why they
must be reference types, i.e. instances of a class.
However, that is checked only at runtime, and I wonder how to make it a compile-time check.
Am I missing something simple/obvious?
You can't do what you are trying to do directly. It has nothing to do with reference types, it's because any constraints make T existential so it is impossible to satisfy them at the call site when you're referencing the protocol's metatype P.self: P.Protocol and an adopter C. There is a special case when T is unconstrained that allows it to work in the first place.
By far the more common case is to constrain T: P and require P: class because just about the only thing you can do with an arbitrary protocol's metatype is convert the name to a string. It happens to be useful in this narrow case but that's it; the signature might as well be register<T>(proto: Any.Type, obj: T) for all the good it will do.
In theory Swift could support constraining to metatypes, ala register<T: AnyObject, U: AnyProtocol where T.Type: U>(proto: U, obj: T) but I doubt it would be useful in many scenarios.
I have created my custom sequence type and I want the function to accept any kind of sequence as a parameter. (I want to use both sets, and my sequence types on it)
Something like this:
private func _addToCurrentTileset(tilesToAdd tiles: SequenceType)
Is there any way how I can do it?
It seems relatively straightforward, but I can't figure it out somehow. Swift toolchain tells me:
Protocol 'SequenceType' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements, and I don't know how to create a protocol that will conform to SequenceType and the Self requirement from it.
I can eliminate the associatedType requirement with, but not Self:
protocol EnumerableTileSequence: SequenceType {
associatedtype GeneratorType = geoBingAnCore.Generator
associatedtype SubSequence: SequenceType = EnumerableTileSequence
}
Now if say I can eliminate self requirement, then already with such protocol definition other collectionType entities like arrays, sets won't conform to it.
Reference:
my custom sequences are all subclasses of enumerator type defined as:
public class Enumerator<T> {
public func nextObject() -> T? {
RequiresConcreteImplementation()
}
}
extension Enumerator {
public var allObjects: [T] {
return Array(self)
}
}
extension Enumerator: SequenceType {
public func generate() -> Generator<T> {
return Generator(enumerator: self)
}
}
public struct Generator<T>: GeneratorType {
let enumerator: Enumerator<T>
public mutating func next() -> T? {
return enumerator.nextObject()
}
}
The compiler is telling you the answer: "Protocol 'Sequence' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements".
You can therefore do this with generics:
private func _addToCurrentTileset<T: Sequence>(tilesToAdd tiles: T) {
...
}
This will allow you to pass in any concrete type that conforms to Sequence into your function. Swift will infer the concrete type, allowing you to pass the sequence around without lose type information.
If you want to restrict the type of the element in the sequence to a given protocol, you can do:
private func _addToCurrentTileset<T: Sequence>(tilesToAdd tiles: T) where T.Element: SomeProtocol {
...
}
Or to a concrete type:
private func _addToCurrentTileset<T: Sequence>(tilesToAdd tiles: T) where T.Element == SomeConcreteType {
...
}
If you don't care about the concrete type of the sequence itself (useful for mixing them together and in most cases storing them), then Anton's answer has got you covered with the type-erased version of Sequence.
You can use type-eraser AnySequence for that:
A type-erased sequence.
Forwards operations to an arbitrary underlying sequence having the same Element type, hiding the specifics of the underlying SequenceType.
E.g. if you will need to store tiles as an internal property or somehow use its concrete type in the structure of you object then that would be the way to go.
If you simply need to be able to use the sequence w/o having to store it (e.g. just map on it), then you can simply use generics (like #originaluser2 suggests). E.g. you might end up with something like:
private func _addToCurrentTileset<S: SequenceType where S.Generator.Element == Tile>(tilesToAdd tiles: S) {
let typeErasedSequence = AnySequence(tiles) // Type == AnySequence<Tile>
let originalSequence = tiles // Type == whatever type that conforms to SequenceType and has Tile as its Generator.Element
}