This question already has answers here:
Non-'#objc' method does not satisfy optional requirement of '#objc' protocol
(3 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I've put the following into a Playground to try and understand this and I just don't:
import Foundation
#objc protocol Sample {
var value: Int { get set }
func increase()
func decrese()
}
extension Sample {
func increase() {
value += 1
}
func decrease() {
value -= 1
}
}
class Test: Sample {
var value: Int = 0
}
The error appears next to the class declaration for Test saying:
Non-'#objc' method 'increase()' does not satisfy requirement of '#objc' protocol 'Sample'
If I re-declare increase() and decrease() in the class then the warning is silenced. Or also if I remove the declarations from the protocol. Could someone please explain?
EDIT
I do need an Objective-C class to conform to this protocol as well, hence the #objc at the start.
The problem is that you’re defining these methods in a protocol extension. This is used to define a “default implementation” for a protocol (i.e. if a type doesn’t implement the method, the protocol’s implementation will be called).
But Objective-C doesn’t have the concept of default implementations for protocols. So it doesn’t makes sense to declare the protocol as #objc and have default implementations within the Swift protocol extension. An Objective-C class conforming to this protocol would never be able to enjoy these Swift default implementations.
The below code works with empty protocol methods' implementation in the Protocol extension class
import Foundation
protocol Sample {
var value: Int { get set }
func increase()
func decrease()
}
extension Sample {
func increase() { }
func decrease() { }
}
class Test: Sample {
var value: Int = 0
}
or if you want some default implementation of Sample protocol methods in the extension then use
import Foundation
protocol Sample {
var value: Int { get set }
func increase()
mutating func decrease()
}
extension Sample {
func increase() {
print("do anything")
}
mutating func decrease() {
value -= 1
}
}
class Test: Sample {
var value: Int = 0
}
mutating is added before the protocol method decrease() because it modifies the Protocol variable value.
If the Protocol extension doesn't modify any of the Protocol variable (e.g. increase()), then there is no need of mutating keyword
Related
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 am trying to convert my code (written in Swift 3) to Swift 4, for that I am adding #objc where needed. Xcode has done quite a good job to automatically fix them but I am struggling with a few (all using the same 2 methods), where Xcode can't help, it just puts #objc somewhere in my code.
I am overriding a method called navbarRightButtonAction(button:) like this in my ViewController class.
class ViewController: PBViewController {
override func navbarRightButtonAction(button: PBAdaptiveButton) {
...
}
}
This is where I get the warning saying:
Override of instance method 'navbarRightButtonAction(button:)' from extension of PBViewController depends on deprecated inference of '#objc'
Then I thought the problem us be in the PBViewController class which looks like this:
extension PBViewController: PBNavigationBarDelegate {
func navbarRightButtonAction(button: PBAdaptiveButton) {
print("Override this method")
}
}
So I added #objc func navbarRightButtonAction(button: PBAdaptiveButton) but it didn't help.
Then I looked into the PBNavigationBarDelegate protocol
protocol PBNavigationBarDelegate {
func navbarRightButtonAction(button:PBAdaptiveButton)
}
I added #objc protocol PBNavigationBarDelegate but it didn't help either.
I have no other idea what to do to fix the deprecation warning.
Put #objc or #nonobjc in front of the extension:
#objc extension PBViewController: PBNavigationBarDelegate
Take a look at Limiting #objc Inference, SE-0160 at Swift Evolution for more details. It contains the following example regarding extensions:
Enabling/disabling #objc inference within an extension
There might be certain regions of code for which all of (or none of) the entry points should be exposed to Objective-C. Allow either #objc or #nonobjc to be specified on an extension. The #objc or #nonobjc will apply to any member of that extension that does not have its own #objc or #nonobjc annotation. For example:
class SwiftClass { }
#objc extension SwiftClass {
func foo() { } // implicitly #objc
func bar() -> (Int, Int) // error: tuple type (Int, Int) not
// expressible in #objc. add #nonobjc or move this method to fix the issue
}
#objcMembers
class MyClass : NSObject {
func wibble() { } // implicitly #objc
}
#nonobjc extension MyClass {
func wobble() { } // not #objc, despite #objcMembers
}
I want some of my classes (not all) to conform using 'Class-Only Protocols' from docs. What I am doing is
protocol RefreshData: class, ClassA, ClassB
{
func updateController()
}
and I am getting the errors
non class type 'RefreshData cannot inherit from classA
non class type 'RefreshData cannot inherit from classB
I'm not sure I am following exactly as in the docs. Does anyone have any ideas about this?
Swift 4 allows you to combine types, so you can have your protocol and then create, for example, a type alias to combine it with a specific class requirement.
For (a contrived) example:
typealias PresentableVC = UIViewController & Presentable
For the presented code:
The problem is that you're trying to limit to specific classes and Swift can't do that (at the moment anyway). You can only limit to classes and inherit from other protocols. Your syntax is for protocol inheritance but you're trying to use it as a class limitation.
Note that the purpose of class protocols is:
Use a class-only protocol when the behavior defined by that protocol’s requirements assumes or requires that a conforming type has reference semantics rather than value semantics.
The answers provided by Chris and Wain are correct. I'm just adding a few more details here.
Defining a protocol
You must distinguish the concept of declaring a protocol (available for classes)
protocol RefreshData: class {
func updateController()
}
Defining a class
...from the concept of conforming your class to a protocol
class ClassA: RefreshData {
func updateController() {
}
}
Conforming a class you don't own
Sometimes you want to conform a class to a protocol but you don't own the source code for that class. In this case you can use an extension
extension ClassB: RefreshData {
func updateController() {
}
}
Latest version of Swift can do it!
I would do a protocol and protocol extensions that target the classes you want! (constraint the extension to specific class)
protocol Movable {
func moveForward()
func moveBackward()
}
extension Movable where Self: Car {
func moveForward() {
self.location.x += 10;
}
func moveBackward() {
self.location.x -= 10;
}
}
extension Movable where Self: Bike {
func moveForward() {
self.x += 1;
}
func moveBackward() {
self.x -= 1;
}
}
class Car: Movable {
var location: CGPoint
init(atLocation location: CGPoint) {
self.location = location
}
}
class Bike: Movable {
var x: Int
init(atX x: Int) {
self.x = x
}
}
protocol RefreshData : class
{
func updateController()
}
class ClassA : RefreshData
{
func updateController() {}
}
class ClassB : RefreshData
{
func updateController() {}
}
I am developing an app to increase a little more my knowledge about swift. One of my questions if is it possible to delegate a optional function with a structure as an argument.
What yes Im able to do:
#objc protocol someProtocol {
optional func optionalFunc(someClass: someClass)
}
class someClass: NSObject {
}
But, what I want to do (problems representing a structure in objc):
#objc protocol someProtocol {
optional func optionalFunc(someStructure: someStructure)
}
struct someStructure {
}
And Im not able to find the way to solve this problem.
And the other thing I want, is similar to this but with enums instead of structs:
#objc protocol someProtocol {
optional func optionalFunc(someEnum: someEnum)
}
enum someEnum {
case example
}
If somebody can help me, I will be very grateful!
Lot of thanks! Luciano!
Swift 2.0 lets you do default implementations of protocols.
protocol someProtocol {
func optionalFunc(someStructure: SomeStructure)
}
extension someProtocol {
func optionalFunc(someStructure: SomeStructure){
// optional, leave empty
}
}
struct SomeStructure {
}
This way you can get around using the optional-decoration and do what you wanted.
You cannot pass the parameters as struct or enum, because it's only valid on Swift language, so it cannot be represented in Objective-C.
Another approach, you can declare a function as variable instead of func:
protocol someProtocol {
var optionalFunc: (someStructure) -> ()? { get set}
}
Implementation:
class someClass : someProtocol {
var optionalFunc: (someStructure) -> ()? = { yourStruct in
// Do anything with yourStruct
return
}
}
Using:
var someVar:someClass = someClass()
var result = someVar.optionalFunc(someStructure())
The result is a ()?. If you do not implement the variable, result will nil
This question already has answers here:
Swift: Property conforming to a specific class and in the same time to multiple protocols
(3 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
In Objective-C, you could define a type as being of a given class and implementing a protocol:
- (UIView <Protocol> *)someMethod;
This would tell that the value returned by someMethod was a UIView implementing a given protocol Protocol. Is there a way to enforce something similar in Swift?
You can do it like this:
protocol SomeProtocol {
func someMethodInSomeProtocol()
}
class SomeType { }
class SomeOtherType: SomeType, SomeProtocol {
func someMethodInSomeProtocol() { }
}
class SomeOtherOtherType: SomeType, SomeProtocol {
func someMethodInSomeProtocol() { }
}
func someMethod<T: SomeType where T: SomeProtocol>(condition: Bool) -> T {
var someVar : T
if (condition) {
someVar = SomeOtherType() as T
}
else {
someVar = SomeOtherOtherType() as T
}
someVar.someMethodInSomeProtocol()
return someVar as T
}
This defines a function that returns an object of type 'SomeType' and protocol 'SomeProtocol' and returns an object that adheres to those conditions.