I am attempting to create an extension method for the Array type to allow for removing an item from an array
extension Array {
func remove(item: AnyObject) {
for var i = self.count - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
if self[i] == item {
self.removeAtIndex(i)
}
}
}
}
On the test condition if self[i] == item, I get the following error: 'T' is not convertible to 'MirrorDisposition'
I've tried many different things, which include:
Using generics: remove<T>(item: T)
Using the === operator, which just gives the error 'T' does not conform to protocol 'AnyObject'
I'm new to Swift, so this is where my knowledge runs out. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
You are getting an error because the compiler can't guarantee that the element stored in your array can be compared with ==. You have to ensure that it the contained type is Equatable. However, there is no way to add a method to a generic class that is more restrictive than the class itself. It is better to implement it as a function:
func removeItem<T: Equatable>(item: T, var fromArray array: [T]) -> [T] {
for i in reverse(0 ..< array.count) {
if array[i] == item {
array.removeAtIndex(i)
}
}
return array
}
Or you could add it as a more generic extension:
extension Array {
mutating func removeObjectsPassingTest(test: (object: T) -> Bool) {
for var i : Int = self.count - 1; i >= 0; --i {
if test(object: self[i]) {
self.removeAtIndex(i)
}
}
}
}
Then you can do this:
var list: [Int] = [1,2,3,2,1]
list.removeObjectsPassingTest({$0 == 2})
The way I would write this function is like this:
mutating func remove<U where U : Equatable>(item: U) {
for var i = self.count - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
if self[i] as U == item {
self.removeAtIndex(i)
}
}
}
Be sure to decorate your function with mutating.
I would use a different type parameter U since you can't really change Array's type parameter to be Equatable. Then I would try to cast the items to U to do the comparison.
Of course, this will fail if you try to call this function with an Array that is instantiated with a non-equatable type.
This is not a solution but if you are trying to remove an item from an array, this is how I do it:
var numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
if let possibleIndex = find(numbers, 1) {
numbers.removeAtIndex(possibleIndex)
}
The error message is confusing. The problem why it does not work is because Swift compiler can not find == operator for Array's element type T. For this to work T would need to conform to Equatable protocol.
I don't know what is MirrorDispsition, but I think the problem is that you can't always equate two objects in Array, because they are not guaranteed to be equatable.
Edit: Look at tng's solution. It will only work with equatable items, though.
Related
Suppose I have some function that I want to populate my data structure using a multi-dimensional array (e.g. a Tensor class):
class Tensor {
init<A>(array:A) { /* ... */ }
}
while I could add in a shape parameter, I would prefer to automatically calculate the dimensions from the array itself. If you know apriori the dimensions, it's trivial to read it off:
let d1 = array.count
let d2 = array[0].count
However, it's less clear how to do it for an N-dimensional array. I was thinking there might be a way to do it by extending the Array class:
extension Int {
func numberOfDims() -> Int {
return 0
}
}
extension Array {
func numberOfDims() -> Int {
return 1+Element.self.numberOfDims()
}
}
Unfortunately, this won't (rightfully so) compile, as numberOfDims isn't defined for most types. However, I'm don't see any way of constraining Element, as Arrays-of-Arrays make things complicated.
I was hoping someone else might have some insight into how to solve this problem (or explain why this is impossible).
If you're looking to get the depth of a nested array (Swift's standard library doesn't technically provide you with multi-dimensional arrays, only jagged arrays) – then, as shown in this Q&A, you can use a 'dummy protocol' and typecasting.
protocol _Array {
var nestingDepth: Int { get }
}
extension Array : _Array {
var nestingDepth: Int {
return 1 + ((first as? _Array)?.nestingDepth ?? 0)
}
}
let a = [1, 2, 3]
print(a.nestingDepth) // 1
let b = [[1], [2, 3], [4]]
print(b.nestingDepth) // 2
let c = [[[1], [2]], [[3]], [[4], [5]]]
print(c.nestingDepth) // 3
(I believe this approach would've still worked when you had originally posted the question)
In Swift 3, this can also be achieved without a dummy protocol, but instead by casting to [Any]. However, as noted in the linked Q&A, this is inefficient as it requires traversing the entire array in order to box each element in an existential container.
Also note that this implementation assumes that you're calling it on a homogenous nested array. As Paul notes, it won't give a correct answer for [[[1], 2], 3].
If this needs to be accounted for, you could write a recursive method which will iterate through each of the nested arrays and returning the minimum depth of the nesting.
protocol _Array {
func _nestingDepth(minimumDepth: Int?, currentDepth: Int) -> Int
}
extension Array : _Array {
func _nestingDepth(minimumDepth: Int?, currentDepth: Int) -> Int {
// for an empty array, the minimum depth is the current depth, as we know
// that _nestingDepth is called where currentDepth <= minimumDepth.
guard !isEmpty else { return currentDepth }
var minimumDepth = minimumDepth
for element in self {
// if current depth has exceeded minimum depth, then return the minimum.
// this allows for the short-circuiting of the function.
if let minimumDepth = minimumDepth, currentDepth >= minimumDepth {
return minimumDepth
}
// if element isn't an array, then return the current depth as the new minimum,
// given that currentDepth < minimumDepth.
guard let element = element as? _Array else { return currentDepth }
// get the new minimum depth from the next nesting,
// and incrementing the current depth.
minimumDepth = element._nestingDepth(minimumDepth: minimumDepth,
currentDepth: currentDepth + 1)
}
// the force unwrap is safe, as we know array is non-empty, therefore minimumDepth
// has been assigned at least once.
return minimumDepth!
}
var nestingDepth: Int {
return _nestingDepth(minimumDepth: nil, currentDepth: 1)
}
}
let a = [1, 2, 3]
print(a.nestingDepth) // 1
let b = [[1], [2], [3]]
print(b.nestingDepth) // 2
let c = [[[1], [2]], [[3]], [[5], [6]]]
print(c.nestingDepth) // 3
let d: [Any] = [ [[1], [2], [[3]] ], [[4]], [5] ]
print(d.nestingDepth) // 2 (the minimum depth is at element [5])
Great question that sent me off on a goose chase!
To be clear: I’m talking below about the approach of using the outermost array’s generic type parameter to compute the number of dimensions. As Tyrelidrel shows, you can recursively examine the runtime type of the first element — although this approach gives nonsensical answers for heterogenous arrays like [[[1], 2], 3].
Type-based dispatch can’t work
As you note, your code as written doesn’t work because numberOfDims is not defined for all types. But is there a workaround? Does this direction lead somewhere?
No, it’s a dead end. The reason is that extension methods are statically dispatched for non-class types, as the following snippet demonstrates:
extension CollectionType {
func identify() {
print("I am a collection of some kind")
}
func greetAndIdentify() {
print("Hello!")
identify()
}
}
extension Array {
func identify() {
print("I am an array")
}
}
[1,2,3].identify() // prints "I am an array"
[1,2,3].greetAndIdentify() // prints "Hello!" and "I am a collection of some kind"
Even if Swift allowed you to extend Any (and it doesn’t), Element.self.numberOfDims() would always call the Any implementation of numberOfDims() even if the runtime type of Element.self were an Array.
This crushing static dispatch limitation means that even this promising-looking approach fails (it compiles, but always returns 1):
extension CollectionType {
var numberOfDims: Int {
return self.dynamicType.numberOfDims
}
static var numberOfDims: Int {
return 1
}
}
extension CollectionType where Generator.Element: CollectionType {
static var numberOfDims: Int {
return 1 + Generator.Element.numberOfDims
}
}
[[1],[2],[3]].numberOfDims // return 1 ... boooo!
This same constraint also applies to function overloading.
Type inspection can’t work
If there’s a way to make it work, it would be something along these lines, which uses a conditional instead of type-based method dispatch to traverse the nested array types:
extension Array {
var numberOfDims: Int {
return self.dynamicType.numberOfDims
}
static var numberOfDims: Int {
if let nestedArrayType = Generator.Element.self as? Array.Type {
return 1 + nestedArrayType.numberOfDims
} else {
return 1
}
}
}
[[1,2],[2],[3]].numberOfDims
The code above compiles — quite confusingly — because Swift takes Array.Type to be a shortcut for Array<Element>.Type. That completely defeats the attempt to unwrap.
What’s the workaround? There isn’t one. This approach can’t work because we need to say “if Element is some kind of Array,” but as far as I know, there’s no way in Swift to say “array of anything,” or “just the Array type regardless of Element.”
Everywhere you mention the Array type, its generic type parameter must be materialized to a concrete type or a protocol at compile time.
Cheating can work
What about reflection, then? There is a way. Not a nice way, but there is a way. Swift’s Mirror is currently not powerful enough to tell us what the element type is, but there is another reflection method that is powerful enough: converting the type to a string.
private let arrayPat = try! NSRegularExpression(pattern: "Array<", options: [])
extension Array {
var numberOfDims: Int {
let typeName = "\(self.dynamicType)"
return arrayPat.numberOfMatchesInString(
typeName, options: [], range: NSMakeRange(0, typeName.characters.count))
}
}
Horrid, evil, brittle, probably not legal in all countries — but it works!
Unfortunately I was not able to do this with a Swift array but you can easily convert a swift array to an NSArray.
extension NSArray {
func numberOfDims() -> Int {
var count = 0
if let x = self.firstObject as? NSArray {
count += x.numberOfDims() + 1
} else {
return 1
}
return count
}
}
I have a String like LINNIIBDDDN, basically a series of tokens. I'd like to use multiple iterators, one for each token type. I'd like to have each iterator ignore the tokens that don't belong to it. That is, I want to call something like next_ish(), to advance the iterator to the next element of its particular token. So if the Niterator is at index 3, and I call next_ish(), I want it to go to index 10, the next N, not the I at index 4. I have some code that already works, but it's a lot of code, it makes the String into an array, and I have subclassed iterators, basically hand-written, with no help from Swift, although I'm sure the Swift iterators are more stable and thoroughly tested. I'd rather use their code than mine, where possible.
It seems like it should be easy just to extend String.Iterator and add next_ish(), but I'm at a loss. My first naive attempt was to extend String.Iterator. I get the error Constrained extension must be declared on the unspecialized generic type 'IndexingIterator' with constraints specified by a 'where' clause. I went looking to figure out what kind of where clause to use, and I haven't found anything.
There are a lot of answers here on SO, about extending arrays and generics, pulling all the elements of a certain type into an array of their own, even some answers about specialized for...in loops, but I can't find anything about extending iterators. I've read through Collections.swift and haven't found anything helpful. Is it possible to extend String.Iterator? That would make my life a lot easier. If not, is there some sort of built-in Swift mechanism for doing this sort of thing?
String.Iterator is (implicitly) defined as
typealias Iterator = IndexingIterator<String>
and the error message
Constrained extension must be declared on the unspecialized generic type 'IndexingIterator' with constraints specified by a 'where' clause
means that we must define extension methods as
extension IndexingIterator where Elements == String { }
Alternatively (with increasing generality):
extension IndexingIterator where Elements: StringProtocol { }
extension IndexingIterator where Elements.Element == Character { }
I haven't found a way to access the underlying collection (or position)
from within an extension method, the corresponding members are defined as
“internal”:
public struct IndexingIterator<Elements : Collection> {
internal let _elements: Elements
internal var _position: Elements.Index
// ...
}
What you can do is to pass the wanted element to your “next-ish” method,
either as the element itself, or as a predicate:
extension IndexingIterator where Elements.Element == Character {
mutating func next(_ wanted: Character) -> Character? {
while let c = next() {
if c == wanted { return c }
}
return nil
}
mutating func next(where predicate: ((Character) -> Bool)) -> Character? {
while let c = next() {
if predicate(c) { return c }
}
return nil
}
}
Example usage:
var it1 = "ABCDABCE".makeIterator()
print(it1.next("C") as Any) // Optional("C")
print(it1.next() as Any) // Optional("D")
print(it1.next("C") as Any) // Optional("C")
print(it1.next() as Any) // Optional("E")
print(it1.next("C") as Any) // nil
var it2 = "LINnIIBDDDN".makeIterator()
while let c = it2.next(where: { "Nn".contains($0) }) {
print(c, terminator: ", ")
}
print()
// N, n, N,
But actually I would consider String.Iterator being an IndexingIterator an implementation detail, and extend the IteratorProtocol instead:
extension IteratorProtocol where Element: Equatable {
mutating func next(_ wanted: Element) -> Element? {
while let e = next() {
if e == wanted { return e }
}
return nil
}
}
extension IteratorProtocol {
mutating func next(where predicate: ((Element) -> Bool)) -> Element? {
while let e = next() {
if predicate(e) { return e }
}
return nil
}
}
That makes it usable for arbitrary sequences. Example:
var it3 = [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34].makeIterator()
while let e = it3.next(where: { $0 % 2 == 0} ) {
print(e, terminator: ", ")
}
print()
// 2, 8, 34,
Is something like
protocol A {
var intCollection: CollectionType<Int> { get }
}
or
protocol A {
typealias T: CollectionType where T.Generator.Element == Int
var intCollection: T
}
possible in Swift 2.1?
Update for Swift 4
Swift 4 now support this feature! read more in here
Not as a nested protocol, but it's fairly straightforward using the type erasers (the "Any" structs).
protocol A {
var intCollection: AnyRandomAccessCollection<Int> { get }
}
This is actually often quite convenient for return values because the caller usually doesn't care so much about the actual type. You just have to throw a return AnyRandomAccessCollection(resultArray) at the end of your function and it all just works. Lots of stdlib now returns Any erasers. For the return value problem, it's almost always the way I recommend. It has the nice side effect of making A concrete, so it's much easier to work with.
If you want to keep the CollectionType, then you need to restrict it at the point that you create a function that needs it. For example:
protocol A {
typealias IntCollection: CollectionType
var intCollection: IntCollection { get }
}
extension A where IntCollection.Generator.Element == Int {
func sum() -> Int {
return intCollection.reduce(0, combine: +)
}
}
This isn't ideal, since it means you can have A with the wrong kind of collection type. They just won't have a sum method. You also will find yourself repeating that "where IntCollection.Generator.Element == Int" in a surprising number of places.
In my experience, it is seldom worth this effort, and you quickly come back to Arrays (which are the dominant CollectionType anyway). But when you need it, these are the two major approaches. That's the best we have today.
You can't do this upright as in your question, and there exists several thread here on SO on the subject of using protocols as type definitions, with content that itself contains Self or associated type requirements (result: this is not allowed). See e.g. the link provided by Christik, or thread Error using associated types and generics.
Now, for you example above, you could do the following workaround, however, perhaps mimicing the behaviour you're looking for
protocol A {
typealias MyCollectionType
typealias MyElementType
func getMyCollection() -> MyCollectionType
func printMyCollectionType()
func largestValue() -> MyElementType?
}
struct B<U: Comparable, T: CollectionType where T.Generator.Element == U>: A {
typealias MyCollectionType = T
typealias MyElementType = U
var myCollection : MyCollectionType
init(coll: MyCollectionType) {
myCollection = coll
}
func getMyCollection() -> MyCollectionType {
return myCollection
}
func printMyCollectionType() {
print(myCollection.dynamicType)
}
func largestValue() -> MyElementType? {
guard var largestSoFar = myCollection.first else {
return nil
}
for item in myCollection {
if item > largestSoFar {
largestSoFar = item
}
}
return largestSoFar
}
}
So you can implement blueprints for your generic collection types in you protocol A, and implement these blueprints in the "interface type" B, which also contain the actual collection as a member property. I have taken the largestValue() method above from here.
Example usage:
/* Examples */
var myArr = B<Int, Array<Int>>(coll: [1, 2, 3])
var mySet = B<Int, Set<Int>>(coll: [10, 20, 30])
var myRange = B<Int, Range<Int>>(coll: 5...10)
var myStrArr = B<String, Array<String>>(coll: ["a", "c", "b"])
myArr.printMyCollectionType() // Array<Int>
mySet.printMyCollectionType() // Set<Int>
myRange.printMyCollectionType() // Range<Int>
myStrArr.printMyCollectionType() // Array<String>
/* generic T type constrained to protocol 'A' */
func printLargestValue<T: A>(coll: T) {
print(coll.largestValue() ?? "Empty collection")
}
printLargestValue(myArr) // 3
printLargestValue(mySet) // 30
printLargestValue(myRange) // 10
printLargestValue(myStrArr) // c
Suppose I have some function that I want to populate my data structure using a multi-dimensional array (e.g. a Tensor class):
class Tensor {
init<A>(array:A) { /* ... */ }
}
while I could add in a shape parameter, I would prefer to automatically calculate the dimensions from the array itself. If you know apriori the dimensions, it's trivial to read it off:
let d1 = array.count
let d2 = array[0].count
However, it's less clear how to do it for an N-dimensional array. I was thinking there might be a way to do it by extending the Array class:
extension Int {
func numberOfDims() -> Int {
return 0
}
}
extension Array {
func numberOfDims() -> Int {
return 1+Element.self.numberOfDims()
}
}
Unfortunately, this won't (rightfully so) compile, as numberOfDims isn't defined for most types. However, I'm don't see any way of constraining Element, as Arrays-of-Arrays make things complicated.
I was hoping someone else might have some insight into how to solve this problem (or explain why this is impossible).
If you're looking to get the depth of a nested array (Swift's standard library doesn't technically provide you with multi-dimensional arrays, only jagged arrays) – then, as shown in this Q&A, you can use a 'dummy protocol' and typecasting.
protocol _Array {
var nestingDepth: Int { get }
}
extension Array : _Array {
var nestingDepth: Int {
return 1 + ((first as? _Array)?.nestingDepth ?? 0)
}
}
let a = [1, 2, 3]
print(a.nestingDepth) // 1
let b = [[1], [2, 3], [4]]
print(b.nestingDepth) // 2
let c = [[[1], [2]], [[3]], [[4], [5]]]
print(c.nestingDepth) // 3
(I believe this approach would've still worked when you had originally posted the question)
In Swift 3, this can also be achieved without a dummy protocol, but instead by casting to [Any]. However, as noted in the linked Q&A, this is inefficient as it requires traversing the entire array in order to box each element in an existential container.
Also note that this implementation assumes that you're calling it on a homogenous nested array. As Paul notes, it won't give a correct answer for [[[1], 2], 3].
If this needs to be accounted for, you could write a recursive method which will iterate through each of the nested arrays and returning the minimum depth of the nesting.
protocol _Array {
func _nestingDepth(minimumDepth: Int?, currentDepth: Int) -> Int
}
extension Array : _Array {
func _nestingDepth(minimumDepth: Int?, currentDepth: Int) -> Int {
// for an empty array, the minimum depth is the current depth, as we know
// that _nestingDepth is called where currentDepth <= minimumDepth.
guard !isEmpty else { return currentDepth }
var minimumDepth = minimumDepth
for element in self {
// if current depth has exceeded minimum depth, then return the minimum.
// this allows for the short-circuiting of the function.
if let minimumDepth = minimumDepth, currentDepth >= minimumDepth {
return minimumDepth
}
// if element isn't an array, then return the current depth as the new minimum,
// given that currentDepth < minimumDepth.
guard let element = element as? _Array else { return currentDepth }
// get the new minimum depth from the next nesting,
// and incrementing the current depth.
minimumDepth = element._nestingDepth(minimumDepth: minimumDepth,
currentDepth: currentDepth + 1)
}
// the force unwrap is safe, as we know array is non-empty, therefore minimumDepth
// has been assigned at least once.
return minimumDepth!
}
var nestingDepth: Int {
return _nestingDepth(minimumDepth: nil, currentDepth: 1)
}
}
let a = [1, 2, 3]
print(a.nestingDepth) // 1
let b = [[1], [2], [3]]
print(b.nestingDepth) // 2
let c = [[[1], [2]], [[3]], [[5], [6]]]
print(c.nestingDepth) // 3
let d: [Any] = [ [[1], [2], [[3]] ], [[4]], [5] ]
print(d.nestingDepth) // 2 (the minimum depth is at element [5])
Great question that sent me off on a goose chase!
To be clear: I’m talking below about the approach of using the outermost array’s generic type parameter to compute the number of dimensions. As Tyrelidrel shows, you can recursively examine the runtime type of the first element — although this approach gives nonsensical answers for heterogenous arrays like [[[1], 2], 3].
Type-based dispatch can’t work
As you note, your code as written doesn’t work because numberOfDims is not defined for all types. But is there a workaround? Does this direction lead somewhere?
No, it’s a dead end. The reason is that extension methods are statically dispatched for non-class types, as the following snippet demonstrates:
extension CollectionType {
func identify() {
print("I am a collection of some kind")
}
func greetAndIdentify() {
print("Hello!")
identify()
}
}
extension Array {
func identify() {
print("I am an array")
}
}
[1,2,3].identify() // prints "I am an array"
[1,2,3].greetAndIdentify() // prints "Hello!" and "I am a collection of some kind"
Even if Swift allowed you to extend Any (and it doesn’t), Element.self.numberOfDims() would always call the Any implementation of numberOfDims() even if the runtime type of Element.self were an Array.
This crushing static dispatch limitation means that even this promising-looking approach fails (it compiles, but always returns 1):
extension CollectionType {
var numberOfDims: Int {
return self.dynamicType.numberOfDims
}
static var numberOfDims: Int {
return 1
}
}
extension CollectionType where Generator.Element: CollectionType {
static var numberOfDims: Int {
return 1 + Generator.Element.numberOfDims
}
}
[[1],[2],[3]].numberOfDims // return 1 ... boooo!
This same constraint also applies to function overloading.
Type inspection can’t work
If there’s a way to make it work, it would be something along these lines, which uses a conditional instead of type-based method dispatch to traverse the nested array types:
extension Array {
var numberOfDims: Int {
return self.dynamicType.numberOfDims
}
static var numberOfDims: Int {
if let nestedArrayType = Generator.Element.self as? Array.Type {
return 1 + nestedArrayType.numberOfDims
} else {
return 1
}
}
}
[[1,2],[2],[3]].numberOfDims
The code above compiles — quite confusingly — because Swift takes Array.Type to be a shortcut for Array<Element>.Type. That completely defeats the attempt to unwrap.
What’s the workaround? There isn’t one. This approach can’t work because we need to say “if Element is some kind of Array,” but as far as I know, there’s no way in Swift to say “array of anything,” or “just the Array type regardless of Element.”
Everywhere you mention the Array type, its generic type parameter must be materialized to a concrete type or a protocol at compile time.
Cheating can work
What about reflection, then? There is a way. Not a nice way, but there is a way. Swift’s Mirror is currently not powerful enough to tell us what the element type is, but there is another reflection method that is powerful enough: converting the type to a string.
private let arrayPat = try! NSRegularExpression(pattern: "Array<", options: [])
extension Array {
var numberOfDims: Int {
let typeName = "\(self.dynamicType)"
return arrayPat.numberOfMatchesInString(
typeName, options: [], range: NSMakeRange(0, typeName.characters.count))
}
}
Horrid, evil, brittle, probably not legal in all countries — but it works!
Unfortunately I was not able to do this with a Swift array but you can easily convert a swift array to an NSArray.
extension NSArray {
func numberOfDims() -> Int {
var count = 0
if let x = self.firstObject as? NSArray {
count += x.numberOfDims() + 1
} else {
return 1
}
return count
}
}
Right now I want to be able to see if an object is included inside an Array so:
func isIncluded<U:Comparable>(isIncluded : U) -> Bool
{
for item in self
{
if (item == isIncluded)
{
return true
}
}
return false
}
If you notice this function belongs to an Array extension. The problem is if add it to this:
extension Array{
}
I receive the following error:
Could not find an overload for '==' that accepts the supplied arguments
I understand that I could probably need to tell what kind of objects should be inside the Array like so: T[] <T.GeneratorType.Element: Comparable>. But it doesn't work as well:
Braced block of statements is an unused closure
Non-nominal type 'T[]' cannot be extended
Expected '{' in extension
With Swift, we'll need to think whether there's a function that can do the trick -- outside the methods of a class.
Just like in our case here:
contains(theArray, theItem)
You can try it in a playground:
let a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
contains(a, 3)
contains(a, 6)
I discover a lot of these functions by cmd-clicking on a Swift symbol (example: Array) and then by looking around in that file (which seems to be the global file containing all declarations for Swift general classes and functions).
Here's a little extension that will add the "contains" method to all arrays:
extension Array {
func contains<T: Equatable>(item: T) -> Bool {
for i in self {
if item == (i as T) { return true }
}
return false
}
}
To add, the problem is that T is already defined and the Array's definition of T does not conform to Equatable. You can either accomplish what you want by casting (like the accepted answer), and risking an invalid cast, or you could pass in a delegate where no casting would be required.
Consider modifying like so:
extension Array {
func contains(comparator: (T)->Bool) -> Bool {
for item in self {
if comparator(item) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
}
Example usage:
class Test {
func arrayContains(){
var test: Int[] = [0,1,3,4,5]
//should be true
var exists = test.contains({(item)->Bool in item == 0});
}
}
Not to say that it's impossible, but I haven't yet seen a way to extend structs or classes to put conditions on the original generics, for instance to guarantee Equatable or Comparable on an Array. However, for your particular issue, instead of extending, you can do something like the following:
var arr = [1, 2, 3]
var isIncluded : Bool = arr.bridgeToObjectiveC().doesContain(1)