I want to extend protocol with a default implementation that satisfies OR ( || ) constraint.
class A { }
class B { }
protocol SomeProtocol { }
/// It will throw error for ||
extension SomeProtocol where Self: A || Self: B {
}
You can't extend a protocol with OR as you can't do it in a if let, because with this the compiler infers the type of self or of the var, so if it conforms 2 types, the compiler doesn't know of what type is self.
(When you type self. or any var. the compiler always knows what type of var is in compiler type, in that case it would be in runtime). So the easiest way is to make that the 2 types conforms a protocol and do a extension of that protocol. So the compiler knows that self conforms a protocol and he doesn't care of the exact type of Self (But you will be able to use only the properties declared in the protocol).
protocol ABType {
// Properties that you want to use in your extension.
}
class A: ABType, SomeProtocol { }
class B: ABType, SomeProtocol { }
protocol SomeProtocol { }
extension SomeProtocol where Self: ABType {
}
Also if you want to apply the extension to both types you have to do it one by one.
extension A: SomeProtocol { }
extension B: SomeProtocol { }
// Silly example:
(In this case is not really useful, but it is just to show how to make to make 2 classes conforms a protocol and to make a extension of it using a method declared in that protocol and creating a default implementation.)
protocol ABType {
func getName()
}
class AClass: ABType {
func getName() {
print ("A Class")
}
}
class BClass: ABType, someProtocol {
func getName() {
print ("B Class")
}
}
protocol someProtocol {
func anotherFunc()
}
extension someProtocol where Self: ABType {
func anotherFunc() {
self.getName()
}
}
let a = AClass()
// a.anotherFunc() <- Error, A cant call anotherFunc
let b = BClass()
b.anotherFunc()
I have a protocol that declares property of type Int. I also have few classes that conforms that Protocol, and now I need to overload operator + for all of them. Since operator + will work based on the property declared, I don't want to implement that operator in each class separately.
So I have
protocol MyProtocol {
var property: Int { get }
}
And I would want to have something like
extension MyProtocol {
static func +(left: MyProtocol, right: MyProtocol) -> MyProtocol {
// create and apply operations and return result
}
}
And actually I successfully did that, but trying to work with it I get an error ambiguous reference to member '+'.
When I move operator overload func to the each class separately, issue disappeared, but I'm still looking for a solution to make it works with Protocols.
Solved, by moving func +... outside of Extension, so it is just a method in the file where MyProtocol is declared
protocol MyProtocol {
var property: Int { get }
}
func +(left: MyProtocol, right: MyProtocol) -> MyProtocol {
// create and apply operations and return result
}
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 have a class, lets call it SomeClass. Instances of SomeClass have an optional pointer to SomeOtherClass. In this way, instances of SomeClass can be instantiated, given a pointer to SomeOtherClass (or a subclass of SomeOtherClass), and then this pointer can be used to dynamically create instances of this SomeOtherClass belonging to SomeClass. Eg;
class SomeClass {
var classPointer: SomeOtherClass.Type?
}
class SomeOtherClass {
}
So far so good. Now, I have a protocol - lets call it SomeProtocol - that I want SomeOtherClass to conform to. This protocol has class functions in it:
protocol SomeProtocol {
static func someClassFunction()
}
extension SomeOtherClass : SomeProtocol {
class func someClassFunction() {
print("I am a class function being executed on SomeOtherClass")
}
}
As expected, I can then call this protocol class function on SomeOtherClass like so:
SomeOtherClass.someClassFunction() // Prints "I am a class function being executed on SomeOtherClass"
Here is the troublesome part. I want to dynamically determine if an instance of SomeClass' classPointer conforms to SomeProtocol, and if so execute the class function on it. So, I try to cast the pointer using as?:
// Create an instance of SomeClass and set it's classPointer to the SomeOtherClass class
let someInstance = SomeClass()
someInstance.classPointer = SomeOtherClass.self
// Check if the instance's classPointer class conforms to the SomeProtocol protocol
if let conformingClass = someInstance.classPointer as? SomeProtocol {
// If so, execute the class function in SomeProtocol on the instance's classPointer
conformingClass.someClassFunction() // Build fails "Static member someClassFunction cannot be used on instance of type SomeProtocol"
}
And the build fails with the error "Static member of someClassFunction cannot be used on instance of type SomeProtocol".
Is there a way to accomplish what I'm attempting? Currently if this doesn't work I can only think of these alternatives (none are preferable and they're all rather hacky):
Switch to objective c.
Switch the protocol to use instance functions instead, then instantiate a temporary instance of SomeClass' classPointer and message it with any necessary functions, then release the instance.
For completeness, here is all of the code together that can be pasted into a Playground (it won't build due to the error I mentioned though):
class SomeClass {
var classPointer: SomeOtherClass.Type?
}
class SomeOtherClass {
}
protocol SomeProtocol {
static func someClassFunction()
}
extension SomeOtherClass : SomeProtocol {
class func someClassFunction() {
print("I am a class function being executed on SomeOtherClass")
}
}
// Create an instance of SomeClass and set it's classPointer to the SomeOtherClass class
let someInstance = SomeClass()
someInstance.classPointer = SomeOtherClass.self
// Check if the instance's classPointer class conforms to the SomeProtocol protocol
if let conformingClass = someInstance.classPointer as? SomeProtocol {
// If so, execute the class function in SomeProtocol on the instance's classPointer
conformingClass.someClassFunction() // Build fails "Static member someClassFunction cannot be used on instance of type SomeProtocol"
}
Thanks for any help you can provide,
- Adam
Ahah! As usual, as soon as I make the SO post, I figure out the answer.
For those wondering, you must cast the classPointer as the protocol's Type, not as the protocol itself. The line:
if let conformingClass = someInstance.classPointer as? SomeProtocol {
Needs to be changed to:
if let conformingClass = someInstance.classPointer as? SomeProtocol.Type {
And you'll then be able to message conformingClass with the class functions declared in SomeProtocol. The complete working code is:
class SomeClass {
var classPointer: SomeOtherClass.Type?
}
class SomeOtherClass {
}
protocol SomeProtocol {
static func someClassFunction()
}
extension SomeOtherClass : SomeProtocol {
class func someClassFunction() {
print("I am a class function being executed on SomeOtherClass")
}
}
// Create an instance of SomeClass and set it's classPointer to the SomeOtherClass class
let someInstance = SomeClass()
someInstance.classPointer = SomeOtherClass.self
// Check if the instance's classPointer class conforms to the SomeProtocol protocol
if let conformingClass = someInstance.classPointer as? SomeProtocol.Type {
// If so, execute the class function in SomeProtocol on the instance's classPointer
conformingClass.someClassFunction()
}
And it works :).
I'm trying to create a delegate protocol that implements a function which passes an array of a generic type. I've tried several combinations but none of them seem to do the trick.
This is the most approximate thing i've reached to. This is the protocol:
protocol APIControllerProtocol {
typealias T
func didReceiveAPIResults(results: [T])
}
And this is the the delegator object:
class APIController<U:APIControllerProtocol> {
typealias ElementType = U
var delegate: ElementType?
init(delegate: ElementType){
self.delegate = delegate
}
func getAPIResults(){
// Perform some action before delegation
// "results" is an Array of dictionaries got from NSJSONSerialization
self.delegate?.didReceiveAPIResults(results.map{dict in Album(json:dict)})
}
}
However, the last line get this error: "Album is not convertible to U.T"
"Album" is the model object used to return the results.
What am i doing wrong?
EDIT:
Following Mike S advice, i've made the protocol method didReceiveAPIResults a generic function, and specified what T is in the delegate. However, when receiving and assigning the argument of type T to a property in the delegate, i get the error: "T is not identical to T"
class TestDelegate: APIControllerProtocol {
typealias T = Album
var albums:[T] = [T]()
func didReceiveAPIResults<T>(results: [T]) {
// ...
self.albums = results //ERROR: "T is not identical to T"
}
}
Your didReceiveAPIResults declaration in APIControllerProtocol needs to be a generic function so that the generic type T is passed along to it correctly.
protocol APIControllerProtocol {
typealias T
func didReceiveAPIResults<T>(results: [T])
}
Note: This means your delegate definition will need to define what T is:
class TestDelegate: APIControllerProtocol {
typealias T = Album
func didReceiveAPIResults<T>(results: [T]) {
// ...
}
}
Update: While the code above does get rid of the original error, it turns out that it acts more like a workaround and doesn't really address the root of the problem.
The real issue seems to be that the compiler is having trouble reconciling what U.T is with no ambiguity. That's actually easy enough to fix though, we just need to give it a more precise definition (note the where clause in the APIController definition):
protocol APIControllerProtocol {
typealias T
func didReceiveAPIResults(results: [T])
}
class APIController<U:APIControllerProtocol where U.T == Album> {
typealias ElementType = U
// ...
}
Note: I removed the <T> that I added to the function in the protocol previously; that's not needed anymore and will end up causing problems later.
With that, the TestDelegate class works as expected (you don't even need the typealias anymore):
class TestDelegate: APIControllerProtocol {
var albums: [Album]? = nil
func didReceiveAPIResults(results: [Album]) {
albums = results
}
}