Set (Collection) - Insert multiple elements - ios

Set is an unordered collection of unique elements. Almost similar to array.
I want to add/insert multiple elements in a Set of String. But there is only single method provided that can insert only one element (accepts single Set element as a parameter argument) and I've collection of string (id).
insert(_:)
#discardableResult mutating func insert(_ newMember: Set.Element) -> (inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element)
How can I do that?
What I've tried:
I tried to create an extension very similar to insert(_:) method but it can accept multiple Set elements. It would be same as use of iteration over collection but don't need to handle it manually everywhere.
extension Set {
#discardableResult mutating func insert(_ newMembers: [Set.Element]) -> (inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element) {
newMembers.forEach { (member) in
self.insert(member)
}
}
}
It should work, if I return a tuple as expected but no idea how and where (which line) and what to return a value.
Here is error message.
Missing return in a function expected to return '(inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element)'
What can be solution to this. Is there any better solution/approach to handle this operation?

It was pointed out in the comments under the question, but I'd like to clearly state that there is a method for that very same purpose:
mutating func formUnion<S>(_ other: S) where Element == S.Element, S : Sequence
Usage:
var attendees: Set = ["Alicia", "Bethany", "Diana"]
let visitors = ["Diana", "Marcia", "Nathaniel"]
attendees.formUnion(visitors)
print(attendees)
// Prints "["Diana", "Nathaniel", "Bethany", "Alicia", "Marcia"]"
Source: Apple Developer
There is also an immutable variant which returns a new instance containing the union:
func union<S>(_ other: S) -> Set<Set.Element> where Element == S.Element, S : Sequence
Usage:
let attendees: Set = ["Alicia", "Bethany", "Diana"]
let visitors = ["Marcia", "Nathaniel"]
let attendeesAndVisitors = attendees.union(visitors)
print(attendeesAndVisitors)
// Prints "["Diana", "Nathaniel", "Bethany", "Alicia", "Marcia"]"
Source: Apple Developer

Swift Set Union
[Swift Set operations]
a.union(b) - a ∪ b - the result set contains all elements from a and b
union - immutable function
unionInPlace(up to Swift 3) => formUnion - mutable function
[Mutable vs Immutable]
Read more here

Your insert declaration states that the method is returning a tuple: (inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element), but your method does not return anything.
Just use:
#discardableResult mutating func insert(_ newMembers: [Set.Element]) {
newMembers.forEach { (member) in
self.insert(member)
}
}
UPDATE
The closest to get is this I believe:
extension Set {
#discardableResult mutating func insert(_ newMembers: [Set.Element]) -> [(inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element)] {
var returnArray: [(inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element)] = []
newMembers.forEach { (member) in
returnArray.append(self.insert(member))
}
return returnArray
}
}
Reasoning:
The docs to the insert say:
Return Value
(true, newMember) if newMember was not contained in the set. If an element equal to newMember was already contained in the set, the method returns (false, oldMember), where oldMember is the element that was equal to newMember. In some cases, oldMember may be distinguishable from newMember by identity comparison or some other means.
E.g., for set {1, 2, 3} if you try to insert 2, the tuple will return (false, 2), because 2 was already there. The second item of the tuple would be object from the set and not the one you provided - here with Ints it's indistinguishable, since only number 2 is equal to 2, but depending on Equatable implementation you can have two different objects that would be evaluated as the same. In that case the second argument might be important for us.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is, that a single tuple therefore corresponds to a single newMember that you try to insert. If you try to insert multiple new members, you cannot describe that insertion just by using a single tuple - some of those new members might have already been there, thus for the the first argument would be false, some other members might be successfully inserted, thus for them the first argument of tuple would be true.
Therefore I believe the correct way is to return an array of tuples [(inserted: Bool, memberAfterInsert: Set.Element)].

I think what you are looking for is this:
extension Set {
mutating func insert(_ elements: Element...) {
insert(elements)
}
mutating func insert(_ elements: [Element]) {
for element in elements {
insert(element)
}
}
}
The example in your question is breaking a couple of good software programming principals, such as the single responsibility rule. It seems like your function is trying to both modify the current set and return a new set. Thats really confusing. Why would you ever want to do that?
If you are trying to create a new set from multiple sets, then you can do the following:
extension Set {
/// Initializes a set from multiple sets.
/// - Parameter sets: An array of sets.
init(_ sets: Self...) {
self = []
for set in sets {
for element in set {
insert(element)
}
}
}
}

Related

How to pass a "Sequence" of type "T" as a parameter in Swift?

Suppose I have a function that takes a sequence of "Person" objects. The sequence could be a simple array, or RealmSwift's Result, or List:
// A simple array
func someFunction(people: [Person]) {
}
// Result
func someFunction(people: Result<Person>) {
}
// List
func someFunction(people: List<Person>) {
}
Instead of having these 3 functions, I want to have only 1 function that takes a generic sequence of "Person" objects, something that looks like this:
func someFunction(people: Sequence<Person>) {
}
This way, I could pass an array, a Result or a List to the function and not have to worry that the types don't match. But obviously this is not allowed in Swift. How do I do that then?
EDIT: Xcode 14.1 and Swift 5.7.1 were released today, and with these versions, you can now do this just with:
func someFunction(people: some Sequence<Person>) { ... }
Original answer is below.
--
You can do this with a where clause. Read about where clauses here:
https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Generics.html#ID192
To answer your specific question, you can create a generic Sequence constraint and constrain its Element like so:
func someFunction<S: Sequence>(people: S) where S.Element == Person { ... }

How to declare a variable to host multiple values [duplicate]

In The Swift Programming Language, it says:
Functions can also take a variable number of arguments, collecting them into an array.
func sumOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
...
}
When I call such a function with a comma-separated list of numbers (`sumOf(1, 2, 3, 4), they are made available as an array inside the function.
Question: what if I already have an array of numbers that I want to pass to this function?
let numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4]
sumOf(numbers)
This fails with a compiler error, “Could not find an overload for '__conversion' that accepts the supplied arguments”. Is there a way to turn an existing array into a list of elements that I can pass to a variadic function?
Splatting is not in the language yet, as confirmed by the devs. Workaround for now is to use an overload or wait if you cannot add overloads.
Here's a work around that I found. I know it's not exactly what you want, but it seems to be working.
Step 1: Declare the function you'd like with an array instead of variadic arguments:
func sumOf(numbers: [Int]) -> Int {
var total = 0
for i in numbers {
total += i
}
return total
}
Step 2: Call this from within your variadic function:
func sumOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
return sumOf(numbers)
}
Step 3: Call Either Way:
var variadicSum = sumOf(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
var arraySum = sumOf([1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
It seems strange, but it is working in my tests. Let me know if this causes unforeseen problems for anyone. Swift seems to be able to separate the difference between the two calls with the same function name.
Also, with this method if Apple updates the language as #manojid's answer suggests, you'll only need to update these functions. Otherwise, you'll have to go through and do a lot of renaming.
You can cast the function:
typealias Function = [Int] -> Int
let sumOfArray = unsafeBitCast(sumOf, Function.self)
sumOfArray([1, 2, 3])
You can use a helper function as such:
func sumOf (numbers : [Int]) -> Int { return numbers.reduce(0, combine: +) }
func sumOf (numbers : Int...) -> Int { return sumOf (numbers) }
I did this (Wrapper + Identity Mapping):
func addBarButtonItems(types: REWEBarButtonItemType...) {
addBarButtonItems(types: types.map { $0 })
}
func addBarButtonItems(types: [REWEBarButtonItemType]) {
// actual implementation
}
I know this response does not answer your exact question, but I feel its worth noting. I too was starting to play with Swift and immediately ran into a similar question. Manojlds answer is better for your question, I agree, but again, another workaround I came up with. I do happen to like Logan's better too.
In my case I just wanted to pass an array:
func sumOf(numbers: Array<Int>) -> Int {
var sum = 0
for number in numbers {
sum += number
}
return sum
}
var someNums = [8,7,2,9,12]
sumOf(someNums)
sumOf([10, 15, 20])
Just wanted to share, in case anyone else was thinking like me. Most of the time I would prefer pass the array like this, but I don't think the "Swiftly" yet. :)
Swift 5
This is an approach with #dynamicCallable feature that allows to avoid overloading or unsafeBitCast but you should make a specific struct to call:
#dynamicCallable
struct SumOf {
func dynamicallyCall(withArguments args: [Int]) -> Int {
return args.reduce(0, +)
}
}
let sum = SumOf()
// Use a dynamic method call.
sum(1, 2, 3) // 6
// Call the underlying method directly.
sum.dynamicallyCall(withArguments: [1, 2, 3]) // 6

What should my Array+RemoveObject.Swift contain?

I am using a template project to try to build a new app. When I run the template project, I get an error saying: '[T] does not have a member named 'indexOf'.
The existing code in the Array+RemoveObject.swift doc is:
import Foundation
public func removeObject<T: Equatable>(object: T, inout fromArray array: [T])
{ let index = array.indexOf(object)
if let index = index {
array.removeAtIndex(index)
}
}
Is the problem the use of indexOf? The odd thing is that when I tried using the solution of someone who answered a similar question, I got around 100 errors from the bond framework.
You function on its own works fine for me (Swift 2.1.1, Xcode 7.2). It seems as if you want this function to be a method of a public class of yours. For a minimum working example, you need at least to wrap your removeObject() method within the class you want it to belong to. Note also that you needn't use a separate line for assigning the result from .indexOf(..) call (possibly nil), but can add assignment and nil check in a single if let statement.
public class MyArrayOperations {
// ...
static public func removeObject<T: Equatable>(object: T, inout fromArray array: [T]) {
if let index = array.indexOf(object) {
array.removeAtIndex(index)
}
}
}
var arr = ["1", "2","3"]
MyArrayOperations.removeObject("2", fromArray: &arr)
print(arr) // ["1", "3"]
Also note that you can explicitly state the same behaviour using two generics, in case you want the array itself to conform to some protocol. You then use one separate generic for the array type and one for its elements, thereafter specifying that the element type should conform to the Generator.Element type of the array. E.g.:
func removeObject<T: Equatable, U: _ArrayType where U.Generator.Element == T>(object: T, inout fromArray array: U) {
if let index = array.indexOf(object) {
array.removeAtIndex(index)
}
}
With this approach, you could add an additional protocol at type constraint for the array generic U in the function signature above, e.g.
func removeObject<T: Equatable, U: protocol<_ArrayType, MyProtocol> where U.Generator.Element == T>(object: T, inout fromArray array: [T]) { ...
This can be especially useful when "simulating" generic Array extensions that conforms to some protocol. See e.g. the following for such an example:
extend generic Array<T> to adopt protocol

Swift how to "pass by value" of a object

I am quite new in Swift. And I create a class(for example):
class Fraction{
var a: Int
init(a:Int){
self.a = a
}
func toString() -> String{
return "\(self.a)"
}
}
and I also build a in other class function:
class func A_plusplus(f:Fraction){
f.a++
}
Then in the executive class I write:
var object = Fraction(a:10)
print("before run func = " + object.toString())
XXXclass.A_plusplus(object)
print("after ran func =" + object.toString() )
So the console output is
before run func = 10; after ran func =11
The question is how can I just send a copy of the "object" to keep its value which equal to 10
And if functions are always pass-by-reference, why we still need the keyword: "inout"
what does difference between A_plusplus(&object)//[if I make the parameter to be a inout parameter] and A_plusplus(object)
Universally, I don't want to use struct. Although this will solve my
problem exactly, I do pass-by-value rarely.So I don't want program's
copying processes slow my user's phone down :(
And It seems conforming the NSCopying protocol is a good option.But
I don't know how to implement the function:
func copyWithZone(zone:
NSZone)-> AnyObject? correctly
If your class is subclass of NSObject,better to use NSCopying
class Fraction:NSObject,NSCopying{
var a:Int
var b:NSString?
required init(a:Int){
self.a = a
}
func toString() -> String{
return "\(self.a)"
}
func copyWithZone(zone: NSZone) -> AnyObject {
let theCopy=self.dynamicType.init(a: self.a)
theCopy.b = self.b?.copy() as? NSString
return theCopy
}
}
class XXXclass{
class func A_plusplus(f:Fraction){
f.a++
f.b = "after"
}
}
var object = Fraction(a:10)
object.b = "before"
print("before run func = " + object.toString())
print(object.b!) //“Before”
XXXclass.A_plusplus(object.copy() as! Fraction)
print("after ran func =" + object.toString() )
print(object.b!)//“Before”
If it is just a common swift class,You have to create a copy method
class Fraction{
var a: Int
init(a:Int){
self.a = a
}
func toString() -> String{
return "\(self.a)"
}
func copy()->Fraction{
return Fraction(a: self.a)
}
}
class XXXclass{
class func A_plusplus(f:Fraction){
f.a++
}
}
var object = Fraction(a:10)
print("before run func = " + object.toString())
XXXclass.A_plusplus(object.copy())
print("after ran func =" + object.toString() )
To make it clear,you have to know that there are mainly two types in swift
Reference types. Like Class instance,function type
Value types,Like struct and others(Not class instance or function type)
If you pass in a Reference types,you pass in the copy of Reference,it still point to the original object.
If you pass in a Copy type,you pass in the copy of value,so it has nothing to do with the original value
Let us talk about inout,if you use it,it pass in the same object or value.It has effect on Value type
func add(inout input:Int){
input++
}
var a = 10
print(a)//10
add(&a)
print(a)//11
Swift has a new concept so called "struct"
You can define Fraction as struct (Not class)
And
struct Fraction{
...
}
var object = Fraction(a:10)
var object1 = object //then struct in swift is value type, so object1 is copy of object (not reference)
And if you use struct then try to use inout in A_plusplus function
Hope this will help you.
how can I just send a copy of the "object" to keep its value which equal to 10
In Swift classes and functions are always passed by reference. Structs, enums and primitive types are passed by value. See this answer.
You can't pass an object by value. You would have to manually copy it before passing it by reference (if that's what you really want).
Another way is to turn your class into a struct, since it would then be passed by value. However, keep in mind there a few other differences between classes and structs, and it might not necessarily be what you want.
And if functions are always pass-by-reference, why we still need the keyword: "inout"
According to the swift documentation, inout is used when
you want a function to modify a parameter’s value, and you want those changes to persist after the function call has ended, define that parameter as an in-out parameter instead.
So in practice with inout you can pass a value type (such as struct or primitive) by reference. You shouldn't really use this very often. Swift provides tuples, that could be used instead.
what does difference between A_plusplus(&object)//[if I make the parameter to be a inout parameter] and A_plusplus(object)
There is no difference for your A_plusplus function. In that function you don't modify the parameter f itself, you modify the f.a property.
The following example shows the effect of using inout when passing a class object. Both functions are the same, differing only in its parameter definition.
class Person {
var name: String
init(name: String) { self.name = name }
}
var me = Person(name: "Lennon") // Must be var to be passed as inout
// Normal object by reference with a var
func normalCall(var p: Person) {
// We sure are able to update p's properties,
// and they will be reflected back to me
p.name = "McCartney"
// Now p points to a new object different from me,
// changes won't be reflected back to me
p = Person(name: "Ringo")
}
// Inout object reference by value
func inoutCall(inout p: Person) {
// We still can update p's properties,
p.name = "McCartney"
// p is an alias to me, updates made will persist to me
p = Person(name: "Ringo")
}
print("\(me.name)") //--> Lennon
normalCall(me)
print("\(me.name)") //--> McCartney
inoutCall(&me)
print("\(me.name)") //--> Ringo
In normalCall p and me are different variables that happen to point to the same object. When you instantiate and assign a new object to p, they no longer refer to the same object. Hence, further changes to this new object will not be reflected back to me.
Stating that p is a var argument just means that its value can change throughout the function, it does not mean the new value will be assigned to what was passed as argument.
On the other hand, in inoutCall you can think of p and me as aliases. As such, assigning a new object to p is the exact same as assigning a new object to me. Any and every change to p is persisted in me after the function ends.

How would I properly format this Swift function to map an array?

I'm trying to build a function with swift that will map an array, divide each value in the array by 3, then spit out a new array. This is what I have so far:
func divideby3Map<T, U>(y: [T], z: T -> U) -> [U] {
let array = [int]()
let divideby3Array = array.map { [y] / 3 }
return dividedby3Array
}
divideby3Map([1,2,3,4,5])
Where T and U are the original array, and the new array being returned respectively, and it's done using generics.
I'm sure this isn't written properly, I'm stuck in terms of the right syntax. For example, since the array being returned is represented by the generic [U], I assume I have to use it somewhere in the array being returned, not sure where though.
When writing a generic function, it’s sometimes easier to approach it in 3 steps: first write the code stand-alone using a specific type. Then write the code as a function, still with a specific type. Finally, change the function to be generic.
The first part, dividing an array by 3, can be done like this:
let a = [1,2,3,4,5]
// map is run on the array of integers, and returns a new
// array with the operation performed on each element in a:
let b = a.map { $0 / 3 }
// so b will be [0,0,1,1,1]
// (don’t forget, integer division truncates)
Note the closure you provide between the { } is an operation that will be applied to each element of the array. $0 represents the element, and you divide it by 3. You could also write it as a.map { i in i / 3 }.
To put this into its own function:
func divideby3Map(source: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return source.map { $0 / 3 }
}
No need to declare a fresh array – map will create one for you. You can then return that directly (you can assign it to a temporary if you prefer, but that isn’t really necessary).
Finally, if you want to make it generic, start by adding a placeholder:
func divideby3Map<T>(source: [T]) -> [T] {
return source.map { $0 / 3 }
}
Note, there’s only a need for one placeholder, T, because you are returning the exact same type you are passed in.
Except… this won’t compile, because the compiler doesn’t know that T is guaranteed to provide two critical things: the ability to divide (a / operator), and the ability to create new T from integer literals (i.e. to create a T with value 3 to divide by). Otherwise, what if we passed an array of strings or an array of arrays in?
To do this, we need to “constrain” T so our function will only accept as arguments types that provide these features. One such protocol we can use to constrain T is IntegerType, which does guarantee these features (as well as some other ones like +, * etc):
func divideby3Map<T: IntegerType>(source: [T]) -> [T] {
return source.map { $0 / 3 }
}
divideby3Map(a) // returns [0,0,1,1,1]
let smallInts: [UInt8] = [3,6,9]
divideby3Map(smallInts) // returns [1,2,3]

Resources