Related
I've got a protocol:
protocol Adjustable: Equatable {
associatedtype T
var id: String { get set }
var value: T { get set }
init(id: String, value: T)
}
And a struct that conforms to it:
struct Adjustment: Adjustable {
static func == (lhs: Adjustment, rhs: Adjustment) -> Bool {
return lhs.id == rhs.id
}
typealias T = CGFloat
var id: String
var value: T
}
And I'm building a wrapper class that behaves like a Set to handle an ordered list of these properties:
struct AdjustmentSet {
var adjustmentSet: [Adjustable] = []
func contains<T: Adjustable>(_ item: T) -> Bool {
return adjustmentSet.filter({ $0.id == item.id }).first != nil
}
}
let brightness = Adjustment(id: "Brightness", value: 0)
let set = AdjustmentSet()
print(set.contains(brightness))
But that of course doesn't work, erroring with:
error: protocol 'Adjustable' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
var adjustmentSet: [Adjustable] = []
Looking around, I thought at first this was because the protocol doesn't conform to Equatable, but then I added it, and it still doesn't work (or I did it wrong).
Moreover, I would like to be able to use a generic here, so that I can do something like:
struct Adjustment<T>: Adjustable {
static func == (lhs: Adjustment, rhs: Adjustment) -> Bool {
return lhs.id == rhs.id
}
var id: String
var value: T
}
let brightness = Adjustment<CGFloat>(id: "Brightness", value: 0)
Or:
struct FloatAdjustment: Adjustable {
static func == (lhs: Adjustment, rhs: Adjustment) -> Bool {
return lhs.id == rhs.id
}
typealias T = CGFloat
var id: String
var value: T
}
let brightness = FloatAdjustment(id: "Brightness", value: 0)
And still be able to store an array of [Adjustable] types, so that eventually I can do:
var set = AdjustmentSet()
if set.contains(.brightness) {
// Do something!
}
Or
var brightness = ...
brightness.value = 1.5
set.append(.brightness)
You can't have an array of items of type Adjustable, because Adjustable isn't really a type. It's a blue print that describes a set of types, one per every possible value of T.
To get around this, you need to use a type eraser https://medium.com/dunnhumby-data-science-engineering/swift-associated-type-design-patterns-6c56c5b0a73a
Have made some great progress using Alexander's suggestion; I was able to use some nested class types to inherit the base type erasure class, and use a generic protocol that conforms to AnyHashable so I can use this with a set!
// Generic conforming protocol to AnyHashable
protocol AnyAdjustmentProtocol {
func make() -> AnyHashable
}
protocol AdjustmentProtocol: AnyAdjustmentProtocol {
associatedtype A
func make() -> A
}
struct AdjustmentTypes {
internal class BaseType<T>: Hashable {
static func == (lhs: AdjustmentTypes.BaseType<T>, rhs: AdjustmentTypes.BaseType<T>) -> Bool {
return lhs.name == rhs.name
}
typealias A = T
var hashValue: Int { return name.hashValue }
let name: String
let defaultValue: T
let min: T
let max: T
var value: T
init(name: String, defaultValue: T, min: T, max: T) {
self.name = name
self.defaultValue = defaultValue
self.min = min
self.max = max
self.value = defaultValue
}
}
class FloatType: BaseType<CGFloat> { }
class IntType: BaseType<Int> { }
}
struct AnyAdjustmentType<A>: AdjustmentProtocol, Hashable {
static func == (lhs: AnyAdjustmentType<A>, rhs: AnyAdjustmentType<A>) -> Bool {
return lhs.hashValue == rhs.hashValue
}
private let _make: () -> AnyHashable
private let hashClosure:() -> Int
var hashValue: Int {
return hashClosure()
}
init<T: AdjustmentProtocol & Hashable>(_ adjustment: T) where T.A == A {
_make = adjustment.make
hashClosure = { return adjustment.hashValue }
}
func make() -> AnyHashable {
return _make()
}
}
struct Brightness: AdjustmentProtocol, Hashable {
func make() -> AnyHashable {
return AdjustmentTypes.FloatType(name: "Brightness", defaultValue: 0, min: 0, max: 1)
}
}
struct WhiteBalance: AdjustmentProtocol, Hashable {
func make() -> AnyHashable {
return AdjustmentTypes.IntType(name: "White Balance", defaultValue: 4000, min: 3000, max: 7000)
}
}
let brightness = Brightness().make()
let whiteBalance = WhiteBalance().make()
var orderedSet = Set<AnyHashable>()
orderedSet.insert(brightness)
print(type(of: orderedSet))
print(orderedSet.contains(brightness))
for obj in orderedSet {
if let o = obj as? AdjustmentTypes.FloatType {
print(o.value)
}
if let o = obj as? AdjustmentTypes.IntType {
print(o.value)
}
}
Prints:
Set<AnyHashable>
true
0.0
Special thanks to this article: https://medium.com/#chris_dus/type-erasure-in-swift-84480c807534 which had a simple and clean example on how to implement a generic type eraser.
With Swift 5.7 you will be able to this without any error from the compiler by prefixing your protocol with any, so your set becomes:
struct AdjustmentSet {
var adjustmentSet: [any Adjustable] = []
func contains(_ item: some Adjustable) -> Bool {
return adjustmentSet.first { $0.id == item.id } != nil
}
}
Note that all items in your adjustmentSet array will be allocated on heap since compile time swift can't determine the size of existential type Adjustable as types implementing it will have variable size.
I don't think this can be done but I'll ask anyway. I have a protocol:
protocol X {}
And a class:
class Y:X {}
In the rest of my code I refer to everything using the protocol X. In that code I would like to be able to do something like:
let a:X = ...
let b:X = ...
if a == b {...}
The problem is that if I try to implement Equatable:
protocol X: Equatable {}
func ==(lhs:X, rhs:X) -> Bool {
if let l = lhs as? Y, let r = hrs as? Y {
return l.something == r.something
}
return false
}
The idea to try and allow the use of == whilst hiding the implementations behind the protocol.
Swift doesn't like this though because Equatable has Self references and it will no longer allow me to use it as a type. Only as a generic argument.
So has anyone found a way to apply an operator to a protocol without the protocol becoming unusable as a type?
If you directly implement Equatable on a protocol, it will not longer be usable as a type, which defeats the purpose of using a protocol. Even if you just implement == functions on protocols without Equatable conformance, results can be erroneous. See this post on my blog for a demonstration of these issues:
https://khawerkhaliq.com/blog/swift-protocols-equatable-part-one/
The approach that I have found to work best is to use type erasure. This allows making == comparisons for protocol types (wrapped in type erasers). It is important to note that while we continue to work at the protocol level, the actual == comparisons are delegated to the underlying concrete types to ensure correct results.
I have built a type eraser using your brief example and added some test code at the end. I have added a constant of type String to the protocol and created two conforming types (structs are the easiest for demonstration purposes) to be able to test the various scenarios.
For a detailed explanation of the type erasure methodology used, check out part two of the above blog post:
https://khawerkhaliq.com/blog/swift-protocols-equatable-part-two/
The code below should support the equality comparison that you wanted to implement. You just have to wrap the protocol type in a type eraser instance.
protocol X {
var name: String { get }
func isEqualTo(_ other: X) -> Bool
func asEquatable() -> AnyEquatableX
}
extension X where Self: Equatable {
func isEqualTo(_ other: X) -> Bool {
guard let otherX = other as? Self else { return false }
return self == otherX
}
func asEquatable() -> AnyEquatableX {
return AnyEquatableX(self)
}
}
struct Y: X, Equatable {
let name: String
static func ==(lhs: Y, rhs: Y) -> Bool {
return lhs.name == rhs.name
}
}
struct Z: X, Equatable {
let name: String
static func ==(lhs: Z, rhs: Z) -> Bool {
return lhs.name == rhs.name
}
}
struct AnyEquatableX: X, Equatable {
var name: String { return value.name }
init(_ value: X) { self.value = value }
private let value: X
static func ==(lhs: AnyEquatableX, rhs: AnyEquatableX) -> Bool {
return lhs.value.isEqualTo(rhs.value)
}
}
// instances typed as the protocol
let y: X = Y(name: "My name")
let z: X = Z(name: "My name")
let equalY: X = Y(name: "My name")
let unequalY: X = Y(name: "Your name")
// equality tests
print(y.asEquatable() == z.asEquatable()) // prints false
print(y.asEquatable() == equalY.asEquatable()) // prints true
print(y.asEquatable() == unequalY.asEquatable()) // prints false
Note that since the type eraser conforms to the protocol, you can use instances of the type eraser anywhere an instance of the protocol type is expected.
Hope this helps.
The reason why you should think twice about having a protocol conform to Equatable is that in many cases it just doesn't make sense. Consider this example:
protocol Pet: Equatable {
var age: Int { get }
}
extension Pet {
static func == (lhs: Pet, rhs: Pet) -> Bool {
return lhs.age == rhs.age
}
}
struct Dog: Pet {
let age: Int
let favoriteFood: String
}
struct Cat: Pet {
let age: Int
let favoriteLitter: String
}
let rover: Pet = Dog(age: "1", favoriteFood: "Pizza")
let simba: Pet = Cat(age: "1", favoriteLitter: "Purina")
if rover == simba {
print("Should this be true??")
}
You allude to type checking within the implementation of == but the problem is that you have no information about either of the types beyond them being Pets and you don't know all the things that might be a Pet (maybe you will add a Bird and Rabbit later). If you really need this, another approach can be modeling how languages like C# implement equality, by doing something like:
protocol IsEqual {
func isEqualTo(_ object: Any) -> Bool
}
protocol Pet: IsEqual {
var age: Int { get }
}
struct Dog: Pet {
let age: Int
let favoriteFood: String
func isEqualTo(_ object: Any) -> Bool {
guard let otherDog = object as? Dog else { return false }
return age == otherDog.age && favoriteFood == otherDog.favoriteFood
}
}
struct Cat: Pet {
let age: Int
let favoriteLitter: String
func isEqualTo(_ object: Any) -> Bool {
guard let otherCat = object as? Cat else { return false }
return age == otherCat.age && favoriteLitter == otherCat.favoriteLitter
}
}
let rover: Pet = Dog(age: "1", favoriteFood: "Pizza")
let simba: Pet = Cat(age: "1", favoriteLitter: "Purina")
if !rover.isEqualTo(simba) {
print("That's more like it.")
}
At which point if you really wanted, you could implement == without implementing Equatable:
static func == (lhs: IsEqual, rhs: IsEqual) -> Bool { return lhs.isEqualTo(rhs) }
One thing you would have to watch out for in this case is inheritance though. Because you could downcast an inheriting type and erase the information that might make isEqualTo not make logical sense.
The best way to go though is to only implement equality on the class/struct themselves and use another mechanism for type checking.
Determining equality across conformances to a Swift protocol is possible without type erasure if:
you are willing to forgo the operator syntax (i.e. call isEqual(to:) instead of ==)
you control the protocol (so you can add an isEqual(to:) func to it)
import XCTest
protocol Shape {
func isEqual (to: Shape) -> Bool
}
extension Shape where Self : Equatable {
func isEqual (to: Shape) -> Bool {
return (to as? Self).flatMap({ $0 == self }) ?? false
}
}
struct Circle : Shape, Equatable {
let radius: Double
}
struct Square : Shape, Equatable {
let edge: Double
}
class ProtocolConformanceEquality: XCTestCase {
func test() {
// Does the right thing for same type
XCTAssertTrue(Circle(radius: 1).isEqual(to: Circle(radius: 1)))
XCTAssertFalse(Circle(radius: 1).isEqual(to: Circle(radius: 2)))
// Does the right thing for different types
XCTAssertFalse(Square(edge: 1).isEqual(to: Circle(radius: 1)))
}
}
Any conformances don't conform to Equatable will need to implement isEqual(to:) themselves
maybe this will be helpful for you:
protocol X:Equatable {
var name: String {get set}
}
extension X {
static func ==(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
return lhs.name == rhs.name
}
}
struct Test : X {
var name: String
}
let first = Test(name: "Test1")
let second = Test(name: "Test2")
print(first == second) // false
All people who say that you can't implement Equatable for a protocol just don't try hard enough. Here is the solution (Swift 4.1) for your protocol X example:
protocol X: Equatable {
var something: Int { get }
}
// Define this operator in the global scope!
func ==<L: X, R: X>(l: L, r: R) -> Bool {
return l.something == r.something
}
And it works!
class Y: X {
var something: Int = 14
}
struct Z: X {
let something: Int = 9
}
let y = Y()
let z = Z()
print(y == z) // false
y.something = z.something
print(y == z) // true
The only problem is that you can't write let a: X = Y() because of "Protocol can only be used as a generic constraint" error.
Not sure why you need all instances of your protocol to conform to Equatable, but I prefer letting classes implement their equality methods.
In this case, I'd leave the protocol simple:
protocol MyProtocol {
func doSomething()
}
If you require that an object that conforms to MyProtocol is also Equatable you can use MyProtocol & Equatable as type constraint:
// Equivalent: func doSomething<T>(element1: T, element2: T) where T: MyProtocol & Equatable {
func doSomething<T: MyProtocol & Equatable>(element1: T, element2: T) {
if element1 == element2 {
element1.doSomething()
}
}
This way you can keep your specification clear and let subclasses implement their equality method only if required.
I would still advise against implementing == using polymorphism. It's a bit of a code smell. If you want to give the framework user something he can test equality with then you should really be vending a struct, not a protocol. That's not to say that it can't be the protocols that are vending the structs though:
struct Info: Equatable {
let a: Int
let b: String
static func == (lhs: Info, rhs: Info) -> Bool {
return lhs.a == rhs.a && lhs.b == rhs.b
}
}
protocol HasInfo {
var info: Info { get }
}
class FirstClass: HasInfo {
/* ... */
}
class SecondClass: HasInfo {
/* ... */
}
let x: HasInfo = FirstClass( /* ... */ )
let y: HasInfo = SecondClass( /* ... */ )
print(x == y) // nope
print(x.info == y.info) // yep
I think this more efficiently communicates your intent, which is basically "you have these things and you don't know if they are the same things, but you do know they have the same set of properties and you can test whether those properties are the same." That is pretty close to how I would implement that Money example.
You have to implement a protocol extension constrained to your class type. Inside that extension you should implement the Equatable operator.
public protocol Protocolable: class, Equatable
{
// Other stuff here...
}
public extension Protocolable where Self: TheClass
{
public static func ==(lhs: Self, rhs:Self) -> Bool
{
return lhs.name == rhs.name
}
}
public class TheClass: Protocolable
{
public var name: String
public init(named name: String)
{
self.name = name
}
}
let aClass: TheClass = TheClass(named: "Cars")
let otherClass: TheClass = TheClass(named: "Wall-E")
if aClass == otherClass
{
print("Equals")
}
else
{
print("Non Equals")
}
But let me recommend you add the operator implementation to your class. Keep It Simple ;-)
Swift 5.1 introduces a new feature into the language called opaque types
Check code below
that still gets back a X, which might be an Y, a Z, or something else that conforms to the X protocol,
but the compiler knows exactly what is being returned
protocol X: Equatable { }
class Y: X {
var something = 3
static func == (lhs: Y, rhs: Y) -> Bool {
return lhs.something == rhs.something
}
static func make() -> some X {
return Y()
}
}
class Z: X {
var something = "5"
static func == (lhs: Z, rhs: Z) -> Bool {
return lhs.something == rhs.something
}
static func make() -> some X {
return Z()
}
}
let a = Z.make()
let b = Z.make()
a == b
I came cross this same issue and I figured that the == operator can be implemented in the global scope (as it used to be), as opposed to a static func inside the protocol's scope:
// This should go in the global scope
public func == (lhs: MyProtocol?, rhs: MyProtocol?) -> Bool { return lhs?.id == rhs?.id }
public func != (lhs: MyProtocol?, rhs: MyProtocol?) -> Bool { return lhs?.id != rhs?.id }
Note that if you use linters such as SwiftLint's static_operator, you'll have to wrap that code around // swiftlint:disable static_operator to silent linter warnings.
Then this code will start compiling:
let obj1: MyProtocol = ConcreteType(id: "1")
let obj2: MyProtocol = ConcreteType(id: "2")
if obj1 == obj2 {
print("They're equal.")
} else {
print("They're not equal.")
}
took some of the code from above and came with the following sollution.
it uses the IsEqual protocol instead of the Equatable protocol and with a few line codes you will be able to compare any two protocol objects with each other, wether they are optional or not, are in an array and even add comparing dates while I was at it.
protocol IsEqual {
func isEqualTo(_ object: Any) -> Bool
}
func == (lhs: IsEqual?, rhs: IsEqual?) -> Bool {
guard let lhs = lhs else { return rhs == nil }
guard let rhs = rhs else { return false }
return lhs.isEqualTo(rhs) }
func == (lhs: [IsEqual]?, rhs: [IsEqual]?) -> Bool {
guard let lhs = lhs else { return rhs == nil }
guard let rhs = rhs else { return false }
guard lhs.count == rhs.count else { return false }
for i in 0..<lhs.count {
if !lhs[i].isEqualTo(rhs[i]) {
return false
}
}
return true
}
func == (lhs: Date?, rhs: Date?) -> Bool {
guard let lhs = lhs else { return rhs == nil }
guard let rhs = rhs else { return false }
return lhs.compare(rhs) == .orderedSame
}
protocol Pet: IsEqual {
var age: Int { get }
}
struct Dog: Pet {
let age: Int
let favoriteFood: String
func isEqualTo(_ object: Any) -> Bool {
guard let otherDog = object as? Dog else { return false }
return age == otherDog.age && favoriteFood == otherDog.favoriteFood
}
}
I have a class A:
class A {
var identifier: String?
var quantity: Int = 0
}
Two arrays of A instances:
var array1: [A] = [a1, a2, a3, a4]
var array2: [A] = [a5, a6, a7, a8]
I don't know which is the best way to check:
array1==array2 if a1.identifier == a5.identifier, a2.identifier == a6.identifier, a3.identifier==a7.identifier, a4.identifier==a8.identifier in Swift.
Please help me...
You can try like this:
let result = zip(array1, array2).enumerated().filter() {
$1.0 == $1.1
}.map{$0.0}
Swift 4
The following method makes it much more easy.
Method 1 - Using Equatable Protocol
Step1 - Make your class 'A' equatable as follows
extension A: Equatable {
static func ==(lhs: A, rhs: A) -> Bool {
// Using "identifier" property for comparison
return lhs.identifier == rhs.identifier
}
}
Step2 - Sort your arrays in ascending or descending order
let lhsArray = array1.sorted(by: { $0.identifier < $1.identifier })
let rhsArray = array2.sorted(by: { $0.identifier < $1.identifier })
Step3 - Use == or elementsEqual comparison
let isEqual = lhsArray == rhsArray
OR
let isEqual = lhsArray.elementsEqual(rhsArray, by: { $0 == $1} )
Method 2 (Without Equatable Protocol)
Step 1 - Sort Array as described in Method1, step 2
Step 2 - Use elementsEqual
lhsArray.elementsEqual(rhsArray, by: { $0.identifier == $1.identifier })
Read more about Array Comparison here
Assume your data like that:
struct Person
{
let name: String
let id: Int
}
var people1 = [
Person(name: "Quang Hà", id: 42),
Person(name: "Lý Hải", id: 23),
Person(name: "Maria", id: 99)
]
var people2 = [
Person(name: "Maria yyy", id: 99),
Person(name: "Billy", id: 42),
Person(name: "David", id: 23)
]
This is the method to compare two arrays of people with id:
func areArrayPeopleEqual(people1:[Person], people2: [Person]) -> Bool {
var array1 = people1
var array2 = people2
// Don't equal size => false
if array1.count != array2.count {
return false
}
// sort two arrays
array1.sortInPlace() { $0.id > $1.id }
array2.sortInPlace() {$0.id > $1.id }
// get count of the matched items
let result = zip(array1, array2).enumerate().filter() {
$1.0.id == $1.1.id
}.count
if result == array1.count {
return true
}
return false
}
This method could be used if you have some parameter to compare:
let difference = currentObjects
.filter({ currentObject in
!(newObjects
.contains(where: { $0.identifier == currentObject.identifier }))
})
I found this really easy solution at https://www.hackingwithswift.com/example-code/language/how-to-find-the-difference-between-two-arrays
extension Array where Element: Hashable {
func difference(from other: [Element]) -> [Element] {
let thisSet = Set(self)
let otherSet = Set(other)
return Array(thisSet.symmetricDifference(otherSet))
}
}
let names1 = ["a1", "A4", "a3", "a4"]//["John", "Paul", "Ringo"]
let names2 = ["a1", "a5", "a4","a1.1"]//["Ringo", "George"]
let difference = names1.difference(from: names2)
First we extend Equatable class, to have a DRY code, than if the 2 arrays are always of the same size, or if at least the first one is <= than the second you can go with this solution.
Pay attention that you are working with optionals, you may have to unwrap them before.
class A {
var identifier: String?
var quantity: Int = 0
init(identifier: String, quantity: Int) {
self.identifier = identifier
self.quantity = quantity
}
}
let a1: A = A(identifier: "1", quantity: 1)
let a2: A = A(identifier: "2", quantity: 2)
let a3: A = A(identifier: "3", quantity: 3)
let a4: A = A(identifier: "4", quantity: 4)
let a5: A = A(identifier: "1", quantity: 1)
let a6: A = A(identifier: "2", quantity: 2)
let a7: A = A(identifier: "3", quantity: 3)
let a8: A = A(identifier: "4", quantity: 4)
var array1: [A] = [a1, a2, a3, a4]
var array2: [A] = [a5, a6, a7, a8]
func areEquals(array1: [A], array2: [A]) -> Bool {
if array1.count < array2.count {
return false
}
for i in 0...array2.count - 1 {
if array1[i] != array2[i] {
return false
}
}
return true
}
extension A: Equatable {
static func ==(lhs: A, rhs: A) -> Bool {
//you can choose how and when they should be equals
return lhs.identifier == rhs.identifier
}
}
try this code, let me know if it works
func toDictionary<E, K, V>(
array: [E],
transformer: (element: E) -> (key: K, value: V)?)
-> Dictionary<K, V>
{
return array.reduce([:]) {
(var dict, e) in
if let (key, value) = transformer(element: e)
{
dict[key] = value
}
return dict
}
}
then you can execute a check like below
let areEqual = array1.count == array2.count;
if areEqual {
let dict1 = toDictionary(array1) { ($0.identifier, $0.quantity) }
let dict2 = toDictionary(array2) { ($0.identifier, $0.quantity) }
areEqual = NSDictionary(dictionary: dict1).isEqualToDictionary(dict2)
}
print(areEqual)
disclaimer: function toDictionary has been took form here
I have an array, with custom objects.
I Would like to pop the repeated objects, with the repeated properties:
let product = Product()
product.subCategory = "one"
let product2 = Product()
product2.subCategory = "two"
let product3 = Product()
product3.subCategory = "two"
let array = [product,product2,product3]
in this case, pop the product2 or product3
Here is an Array extension to return the unique list of objects based on a given key:
extension Array {
func unique<T:Hashable>(map: ((Element) -> (T))) -> [Element] {
var set = Set<T>() //the unique list kept in a Set for fast retrieval
var arrayOrdered = [Element]() //keeping the unique list of elements but ordered
for value in self {
if !set.contains(map(value)) {
set.insert(map(value))
arrayOrdered.append(value)
}
}
return arrayOrdered
}
}
using this you can so this
let unique = [product,product2,product3].unique{$0.subCategory}
this has the advantage of not requiring the Hashable and being able to return an unique list based on any field or combination
You can use Swift Set:
let array = [product,product2,product3]
let set = Set(array)
You have to make Product conform to Hashable (and thus, Equatable) though:
class Product : Hashable {
var subCategory = ""
var hashValue: Int { return subCategory.hashValue }
}
func ==(lhs: Product, rhs: Product) -> Bool {
return lhs.subCategory == rhs.subCategory
}
And, if Product was a NSObject subclass, you have to override isEqual:
override func isEqual(object: AnyObject?) -> Bool {
if let product = object as? Product {
return product == self
} else {
return false
}
}
Clearly, modify those to reflect other properties you might have in your class. For example:
class Product : Hashable {
var category = ""
var subCategory = ""
var hashValue: Int { return [category, subCategory].hashValue }
}
func ==(lhs: Product, rhs: Product) -> Bool {
return lhs.category == rhs.category && lhs.subCategory == rhs.subCategory
}
If Product conforms to Equatable, where a product is equal based on it's subcategory (and you don't care about order), you can add the objects to a set, and take an array from that set:
let array = [product,product2,product3]
let set = NSSet(array: array)
let uniqueArray = set.allObjects
or
let array = [product,product2,product3]
let set = Set(array)
let uniqueArray = Array(set)
If your class conforms to protocol Hashable and you would like to keep the original array order you can create an extension as follow:
extension Array where Element: Hashable {
var uniqueElements: [Element] {
var elements: [Element] = []
for element in self {
if let _ = elements.indexOf(element) {
print("item found")
} else {
print("item not found, add it")
elements.append(element)
}
}
return elements
}
}
class Product {
var subCategory: String = ""
}
let product = Product()
product.subCategory = "one"
let product2 = Product()
product2.subCategory = "two"
let product3 = Product()
product3.subCategory = "two"
let array = [product,product2,product3]
extension Product : Hashable {
var hashValue: Int {
return subCategory.hashValue
}
}
func ==(lhs: Product, rhs: Product)->Bool {
return lhs.subCategory == rhs.subCategory
}
let set = Set(array)
set.forEach { (p) -> () in
print(p, p.subCategory)
}
/*
Product one
Product two
*/
if an item is part of set or not doesn't depends on hashValue, it depends on comparation. if your product conform to Hashable, it should conform to Equatable. if you need that the creation of the set depends solely on subCategory, the comparation should depends solely on subCategory. this can be a big trouble, if you need to compare your products some other way
Here is a KeyPath based version of the Ciprian Rarau' solution
extension Array {
func unique<T: Hashable>(by keyPath: KeyPath<Element, T>) -> [Element] {
var set = Set<T>()
return self.reduce(into: [Element]()) { result, value in
guard !set.contains(value[keyPath: keyPath]) else {
return
}
set.insert(value[keyPath: keyPath])
result.append(value)
}
}
}
example usage:
let unique = [product, product2, product3].unique(by: \.subCategory)
I have a bunch of Objects stored in an Array.
They all have the property:
distanceInSeconds: Int
I was wondering if there's a way to find the max of this property between all objects in the array using filter or another array method?
For instance:
var distances: [Distance] = []
var maxDistance = distances.filter(find max)
This would be the Swifty way (by implementing Comparable):
class Route : Comparable {
let distance: Int
init(distance: Int) {
self.distance = distance
}
}
func ==(lhs: Route, rhs: Route) -> Bool {
return lhs.distance == rhs.distance
}
func <(lhs: Route, rhs: Route) -> Bool {
return lhs.distance < rhs.distance
}
let routes = [
Route(distance: 4),
Route(distance: 8),
Route(distance: 2),
Route(distance: 7)
]
print(routes.maxElement()?.distance)
output:
"8"
This works with Swift 2. If you're using Swift 1.2, maxElement(routes) should work
In Swift 2.0 minElement and maxElement now return optionals in case of empty sequences, and also now have versions that take isOrderedBefore closures.
let maxDistance = distances.maxElement { (a, b) -> Bool in
a.distanceInSeconds < b.distanceInSeconds
}
#1. The element type inside your sequence conforms to Comparable protocol
With Swift 4, if the element type inside your sequence conforms to Comparable protocol, you will be able to use the max() method that has the following declaration:
func max() -> Self.Element?
Returns the maximum element in the sequence.
Usage:
class Distance: Comparable, CustomStringConvertible {
let distanceInSeconds: Int
var description: String { return "Distance in Int: \(distanceInSeconds)" }
init(distanceInSeconds: Int) {
self.distanceInSeconds = distanceInSeconds
}
static func ==(lhs: Distance, rhs: Distance) -> Bool {
return lhs.distanceInSeconds == rhs.distanceInSeconds
}
static func <(lhs: Distance, rhs: Distance) -> Bool {
return lhs.distanceInSeconds < rhs.distanceInSeconds
}
}
let distances = [
Distance(distanceInSeconds: 20),
Distance(distanceInSeconds: 30),
Distance(distanceInSeconds: 10)
]
let maxDistance = distances.max()
print(String(describing: maxDistance)) // prints: Optional(Distance in Int: 30)
#2. The element type inside your sequence does not conform to Comparable protocol
With Swift 4, if the element type inside your sequence does not conform to Comparable protocol, you will have to use the max(by:) method that has the following declaration:
func max(by areInIncreasingOrder: ((offset: Int, element: Base.Element), (offset: Int, element: Base.Element)) throws -> Bool) rethrows -> (offset: Int, element: Base.Element)?
Returns the maximum element in the sequence, using the given predicate as the comparison between elements.
Usage:
class Distance: CustomStringConvertible {
let distanceInSeconds: Int
var description: String { return "Distance in Int: \(distanceInSeconds)" }
init(distanceInSeconds: Int) {
self.distanceInSeconds = distanceInSeconds
}
}
let distances = [
Distance(distanceInSeconds: 20),
Distance(distanceInSeconds: 30),
Distance(distanceInSeconds: 10)
]
let maxDistance = distances.max (by: { (a, b) -> Bool in
return a.distanceInSeconds < b.distanceInSeconds
})
print(String(describing: maxDistance)) // prints: Optional(Distance in Int: 30)
I think you want reduce:
Setup:
struct Distance {
var distanceInSeconds: Int
}
var distances: [Distance] = []
for _ in 1...10 {
distances += [Distance(distanceInSeconds: Int(arc4random_uniform(100)))]
}
Implementation:
let max = distances.reduce(distances.first) {
if let left = $0 where left.distanceInSeconds > $1.distanceInSeconds {
return $0
} else {
return $1
}
}