Enforce template to be a protocol - ios

How do I ensure that a given template parameter is a protocol?
A GKEntity has a function called component(ofType: class) and i want to add component(ofProtocol: Protocol). It does look like this:
extension GKEntity {
func component<T: Protocol>(ofProtocol: T) -> T? {
return self.components.first() { component in
return component.conforms(to: ofProtocol)
} as? T
}
}
I want to use it in an component which holds a reference to the entity like this:
let component = self.entity?.component(ofProtocol: SpriteComponentProtocol)
but somehow i always get:
Showing All Messages
Cannot convert value of type 'SpriteComponentProtocol.Protocol' to expected argument type 'Protocol'
Update:
The idea is that i have a component for a Sprite:
protocol SpriteComponentProtocol {
var spriteNode: SKSpriteNode { get set }
}
class SpriteComponent: GKComponent {
var spriteNode: SKSpriteNode?
}
And a other component for the control:
protocol PlayerControlComponentProtocol {
var steerAngle: Double { get set }
}
class PlayerControlComponent: GKComponent, PlayerControlComponentProtocol {
var steerAngle: Double = 90.0
override func update(deltaTime seconds: TimeInterval) {
//here i do manipulate the spriteComponent.spriteNode
let comp = self.entity?.component(ofProtocol: SpriteComponentProtocol)
}
}
I want to be able to exchange the SpriteComponent at any time.

The problem with your code is that Protocol is an opaque type that describes an Obj-C protocol, so if you want to bridge SpriteComponentProtocol.self over to it, you need to mark SpriteComponentProtocol as #objc (but even if you did; you wouldn't be able to cast to T, because the returned instance isn't of type Protocol).
But that being said, you don't need to use the Obj-C Protocol type or conforms(to:) method here, you can simply use the conditional type-casting operator as? in an overload of component(ofType:) without the GKComponent constraint on T:
extension GKEntity {
func component<T>(ofType type: T.Type) -> T? {
return self.components.lazy.flatMap{ $0 as? T }.first
}
}
We're using lazy here in order to avoid evaluating all the components, and then flatMap(_:) and first in order to get the first element that's castable to T (and in the case of T being a protocol type, this gives us the first element that conforms to the protocol).
You can then simply use it like so:
protocol SpriteComponentProtocol {
var spriteNode: SKSpriteNode { get set }
}
class PlayerControlComponent: GKComponent {
override func update(deltaTime seconds: TimeInterval) {
let comp = self.entity?.component(ofType: SpriteComponentProtocol.self)
}
}
And in Swift 4, you can remove this overload entirely, and instead simply call GKEntity's component(ofType:) method with a class existential metatype:
let comp = self.entity?.component(ofType: (GKComponent & SpriteComponentProtocol).self)
As now T satisfies the : GKComponent constraint. You can then access both GKComponent methods and SpriteComponentProtocol protocol requirements on the unwrapped instance.

Related

Testing type for class conformance in Swift

EDIT: The previous answers alluded to in the comments don't answer the question, which was how to determine if any given Type was a reference type and how to safely conform said type to AnyObject.
Testing against the passed type doesn't work, as the underlying type could be optional, or it could be a protocol, in which case one needs to know the passed instance is a class type or value type.
The solution I came up with is similar to the revised answer provided below.
So I have a new dependency injection framework, Factory.
Factory allows for scoped instances, basically allowing you to cache services once they're created. And one of those scopes is shared. Any instance shared will be cached and returned just as long as someone in the outside world maintains a strong reference to it. After the last reference releases the object the cache releases the object and a new instance will be created on the next resolution.
This is implemented, obviously, as simply maintaining a weak reference to the created object. If the weak reference is nil it's time to create a new object.
And therein lies the problem
Weak references can only apply to reference types.
Factory uses generics internally to manage type information. But I can create Factories of any type: Classes, structs, strings, whatever.)
Scopes use dictionaries of boxed types internally. If an instance exists in the cache and in the box it's returned. So what I'd like to do is create this...
private struct WeakBox<T:AnyObject>: AnyBox {
weak var boxed: T
}
The AnyObject conformance is need in order to allow weak. You get a compiler error otherwise. Now I want to box and cache an object in my shared scope with something like this...
func cache<T>(id: Int, instance: T) {
cache[id] = WeakBox(boxed: instance)
}
But this also gives a compiler error. (Generic struct WeakBox requires T to be a class type.)
So how to bridge from on to the other? Doing the following doesn't work. Swift shows a warning that "Conditional cast from 'T' to 'AnyObject' always succeeds" and then converts the type anyway.
func cache<T>(id: Int, instance: T) {
if let instance = instance as? AnyObject {
cache[id] = WeakBox(boxed: instance)
}
}
I'd be happy with the following, but again, same problem. You can't test for class conformance and you can't conditionally cast to AnyObject. Again, it always succeeds.
private struct WeakBox: AnyBox {
weak var boxed: AnyObject?
}
func cache<T>(id: Int, instance: T) {
if let instance = instance as? AnyObject {
cache[id] = WeakBox(boxed: instance)
}
}
What I'm doing at the moment is something like...
private struct WeakBox: AnyBox {
weak var boxed: AnyObject?
}
func cache<T>(id: Int, instance: T) {
cache[id] = WeakBox(boxed: instance as AnyObject)
}
Which works, but that instance as AnyObject cast depends on some very weird Swift to Objective-C bridging behavior.
Not being able to test for class conformance at runtime is driving me bonkers, and seems like a semi-major loophole in the language.
You can't test for conformance, and you can't cast for conformance.
So what can you do?
As Martin notes in a comment, any value can be cast to AnyObject in Swift, because Swift will wrap value types in an opaque _SwiftValue class, and the cast will always succeed. There is a way around this, though.
The way to check whether a value is a reference type without this implicit casting is to check whether its type is AnyObject.Type, like so:
func printIsObject(_ value: Any) {
if type(of: value) is AnyObject.Type {
print("Object")
} else {
print("Other")
}
}
class Foo {}
struct Bar {}
enum Quux { case q }
printIsObject(Foo()) // => Object
printIsObject(Bar()) // => Other
printIsObject(Quux.q) // => Other
Note that it's crucial that you check whether the type is AnyObject.Type not is AnyObject. T.self, the object representing the type of the value, is itself an object, so is AnyObject will always succeed. Instead, is AnyObject.Type asks "does this inherit from the metatype of all objects", i.e., "does this object which represents a type inherit from an object that represents all object types?"
Edit: Evidently, I'd forgotten that Swift includes AnyClass as a synonym for AnyObject.Type, so the check can be simplified to be is AnyClass. However, leaving the above as a marginally-expanded explanation for how this works.
If you want this method to also be able to handle Optional values, you're going to have to do a bit of special-casing to add support. Specifically, because Optional<T> is an enum regardless of the type of T, you're going to need to reach in to figure out what T is.
There are a few ways to do this, but because Optional is a generic type, and it's not possible to ask "is this value an Optional<T>?" without knowing what T is up-front, one of the easier and more robust ways to do this is to introduce a protocol which Optional adopts that erases the type of the underlying value while still giving you access to it:
protocol OptionalProto {
var wrappedValue: Any? { get }
}
extension Optional: OptionalProto {
var wrappedValue: Any? {
switch self {
case .none: return nil
case let .some(value):
// Recursively reach in to grab nested optionals as needed.
if let innerOptional = value as? OptionalProto {
return innerOptional.wrappedValue
} else {
return value
}
}
}
}
We can then use this protocol to our advantage in cache:
func cache(id: Int, instance: Any) {
if let opt = instance as? OptionalProto {
if let wrappedValue = opt.wrappedValue {
cache(id: id, instance: wrappedValue)
}
return
}
// In production:
// cache[id] = WeakBox(boxed: instance as AnyObject)
if type(of: instance) is AnyClass {
print("\(type(of: instance)) is AnyClass")
} else {
print("\(type(of: instance)) is something else")
}
}
This approach handles all of the previous cases, but also infinitely-deeply-nested Optionals, and protocol types inside of Optionals:
class Foo {}
struct Bar {}
enum Quux { case q }
cache(id: 1, instance: Foo()) // => Foo is AnyClass
cache(id: 2, instance: Bar()) // => Bar is something else
cache(id: 3, instance: Quux.q) // => Quux is something else
let f: Optional<Foo> = Foo()
cache(id: 4, instance: f) // => Foo is AnyClass
protocol SomeProto {}
extension Foo: SomeProto {}
let p: Optional<SomeProto> = Foo()
cache(id: 5, instance: p) // => Foo is AnyClass
So this took a while to figure out and even longer to track down the clues needed for a solution, so I'm providing my own code and answer to the problem
Given the following protocol...
private protocol OptionalProtocol {
var hasWrappedValue: Bool { get }
var wrappedValue: Any? { get }
}
extension Optional : OptionalProtocol {
var hasWrappedValue: Bool {
switch self {
case .none:
return false
case .some:
return true
}
}
var wrappedValue: Any? {
switch self {
case .none:
return nil
case .some(let value):
return value
}
}
}
And a box type to hold a weak reference...
private protocol AnyBox {
var instance: Any { get }
}
private struct WeakBox: AnyBox {
weak var boxed: AnyObject?
var instance: Any {
boxed as Any
}
}
Then the code to test and box a give type looks like...
func box<T>(_ instance: T) -> AnyBox? {
if let optional = instance as? OptionalProtocol {
if let unwrapped = optional.wrappedValue, type(of: unwrapped) is AnyObject.Type {
return WeakBox(boxed: unwrapped as AnyObject)
}
} else if type(of: instance) is AnyObject.Type {
return WeakBox(boxed: instance as AnyObject)
}
return nil
}
Note that the type passed in could be a class, or a struct or some other value, or it could be a protocol. And it could be an optional version of any of those things.
As such, if it's optional we need to unwrap it and test the actual wrapped type to see if it's a class. If it is, then it's safe to perform our AnyObject cast.
If the passed value isn't optional, then we still need to check to see if it's a class.
There's also a StrongBox type used for non-shared type caching.
struct StrongBox<T>: AnyBox {
let boxed: T
var instance: Any {
boxed as Any
}
}
And the final cache routine looks like this.
func resolve<T>(id: UUID, factory: () -> T) -> T {
defer { lock.unlock() }
lock.lock()
if let box = cache[id], let instance = box.instance as? T {
if let optional = instance as? OptionalProtocol {
if optional.hasWrappedValue {
return instance
}
} else {
return instance
}
}
let instance: T = factory()
if let box = box(instance) {
cache[id] = box
}
return instance
}
Source for the entire project is in the Factory repository.

Issue with `Protocol can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements`

I'm trying to generate a ViewModel that conforms to a Protocol Protocoling, the protocol is generic, and has an associated type.
There are a few ViewModel's that conform to the protocol, so I am trying to create a factory for the viewModel.
I have encotuntered the following error by Swift:
Protocol can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Example code:
protocol Protocoling {
associatedtype modulingType
var data: modulingType { get }
}
enum MyTypes {
case myName
case myAddress
}
class NameViewModel: Protocoling {
let data: String
init(name: String) {
data = name
}
}
class AddressViewModel: Protocoling {
let data: [String]
init(address: [String]) {
data = address
}
}
class DataFactory {
func viewModel(forType type: MyTypes) -> Protocoling {
switch type {
case .name: return NameViewModel(name: "Gil")
case .address: return AddressViewModel(address: ["Israel", "Tel Aviv"])
}
}
}
The error is in func viewModel(forType type: MyTypes) -> Protocoling.
Is there a way to solve this issue?
You can use a protocol with an associated type (PAT) as a return type like that without more constraint because the compiler needs to know which type to use.
In your case you must use a technic called the type erasure to be able to work with any Protocoling:
class AnyProtocoling: Protocoling {
let data: Any
init<U: Protocoling>(_ viewModel: U) {
self.data = viewModel.data as Any
}
}
class DataFactory {
func viewModel(forType type: MyTypes) -> AnyProtocoling {
switch type {
case .myName:
return AnyProtocoling(NameViewModel(name: "Gil"))
case .myAddress:
return AnyProtocoling(AddressViewModel(address: ["Israel", "Tel Aviv"]))
}
}
}
This will allow you to "erase" the associated type of your protocol and return an Any version of your view model.
In order to understand why the PAT needs to work like that I like the following example: the Equatable protocol (which is a PAT):
static func ==(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool
This function uses the Self type which is an associated type. You want to use it in the next generic function:
func areEquals(left: Equatable, right: Equatable) -> Bool {
return left == right
}
Here the compiler will trigger this error: Protocol can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements. Why? Lets take this example:
struct tomato: Equatable {}
struct salad: Equatable {}
areEquals(left: tomato(), right: salad())
There is no reason to compare tomatoes and salads. The associated type Self is not the same. To avoid this error in this case you need to constraint the Self type as following:
func areEquals<T: Equatable>(left: T, right: T) -> Bool
Now you know the T are equatables and with the same associated types.
This is very simple to fix, in your concrete factory implementation you just need to specify a generic for your factory that has to conform to protocol protocoling, see code below :
Swift 4
protocol Protocoling {
associatedtype modulingType
var data: modulingType { get }
}
enum MyTypes {
case myName
case myAddress
}
class NameViewModel: Protocoling {
let data: String
init(name: String) {
data = name
}
}
class AddressViewModel: Protocoling {
let data: [String]
init(address: [String]) {
data = address
}
}
class DataFactory<T> where T: Protocoling {
func viewModel(forType type: MyTypes) -> T? {
switch type {
case .myName: return NameViewModel(name: "Gil") as? T
case .myAddress: return AddressViewModel(address: ["Israel", "Tel Aviv"]) as? T
default: return nil /* SUPPORT EXTENSION WITHOUT BREAKING */
}
}
}
It's a first step into the wonderful world of abstraction with protocols. You really create some amazing things with it. Though, I have to say, that personally it's not as intuitive as something like inheritance, it's a great little mind bending puzzle for creating decoupled and abstract systems, that are actually far more powerful.
Swift is a great introductory language, and I believe that it's protocol and extension mechanisms make it one of the more complex and interesting languages.
This design pattern is a great way setting up things like dependency injection.

Generic class type doesn't conform to Any

I have a problem with storing my generic classes in an array. How should I format the type for my array while keeping the reference to the original type (I know I could do var myClasses: [Any] = [] but that wouldn't be helpful when retrieving the variable from my array :(
Example is below:
import UIKit
protocol Reusable { }
extension UITableViewCell: Reusable { }
extension UICollectionViewCell: Reusable { }
class SomeClass<T> where T: Reusable {
init() { }
}
var myClasses: [SomeClass<Reusable>] = []
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>())
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>())
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>())
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>())
Edit: Just to clarify, I have used the collection and table cells as an example, I am not actually planning on storing them together :)
Edit 2 var myClasses: [SomeClass<Reusable>] = [] generates error: using 'Reusable' as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'Reusable' is not supported
Edit 3 var myClasses: [SomeClass<AnyObject>] = [] generates error: type 'AnyObject' does not conform to protocol 'Reusable'
I think you can create some sort of Holder class that can accept and retrieve your object:
class Holder {
lazy var classes: [Any] = []
func get<T>(_ type: T.Type) -> [T]? {
return classes.filter({ $0 is T }) as? [T]
}
}
And the main part:
let holder = Holder()
holder.classes.append(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>())
if let someTableViewCells = holder.get(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>.self)?.first {
// or filter out again to get specific SomeClass of UITableViewCell
print(someTableViewCells)
}
Or without holder class:
var classes: [Any] = []
classes.append(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>())
if let someTableViewCell = classes.filter({ $0 is SomeClass<UITableViewCell> }).first as? SomeClass<UITableViewCell> {
print(someTableViewCell)
}
You should use array of AnyObject in your case. Because as you know swift is strong typed language and for example
SomeClass<UITableViewCell>
and
SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>
are different types of objects. As for example Array< Int > and Array< String >, they are both arrays, but still it's a different types of objects. So in this case you'll have to use declaration:
var myClasses: [AnyObject] = []
and check type of object or typecast them every time you'll need.
if (myClasses[0] is SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>) { do something }
or
if let cell = myClasses[0] as? SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell> { do something }
My suggestion is adding parent protocol SomeClass Container for your SomeClass generic. Then put an array of SomeClass objects inside SomeClass.
protocol Reusable { func cakePlease() }
extension UITableViewCell: Reusable {
func cakePlease() { }
}
extension UICollectionViewCell: Reusable {
func cakePlease() { }
}
protocol SomeClassContainer {
func teaPlease()
func afternoonPlease()
}
class SomeClass<T: Reusable>: SomeClassContainer {
var item: T?
init() { }
func teaPlease() { }
func afternoonPlease() {
teaPlease()
item?.cakePlease()
}
}
var myClasses = [SomeClassContainer]()
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>())
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>())
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UITableViewCell>())
myClasses.append(SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>())
myClasses[0].teaPlease()
if let item = (myClasses[0] as? SomeClass<UITableViewCell>)?.item {
item.cakePlease()
}
for myClass in myClasses {
if let tableCell = (myClass as? SomeClass<UITableViewCell>)?.item {
tableCell.cakePlease()
} else if let collectionCell = (myClass as SomeClass<UICollectionViewCell>)?.item {
collectionCell.cakePlease()
}
}
myClasses.forEach({ $0.afternoonPlease() })
Generally the way to type your array would be to go as specific as possible whilst still covering all bases.
What I mean by this for example is storing an array of UIViewController objects, even though each will actually be a different type. You wouldn't use Any here because you really don't need to be that general.
In your case, why not use Reusable? Since all your generic classes conform to it anyway, it is as general as you can go whilst still maintaining convenience.

How to implement a computed property like a abstract property in Swift?

I know there is no abstract class and either Abstract keyword in Swift. The following problem just like implementing a abstract property.
For convenient, supposed that there are three classes as following:
class SuperClass: NSManagedObject { // the compiler will complain without 'NSManagedObject', and I don't know why.
public let superInt: Int = 1 // use superInt to represent other stored property for SuperClass.
}
class SubClass1: SuperClass {
let subInt1: Int = 2 // use 'subInt1' to represent other stored property for SubClass1.
}
class SubClass2: SuperClass {
let subInt2: Int = 3 // use 'subInt2' to represent other stored property for SubClass2.
}
protocol TestProtocol {
var count: Int { get } // a computed property
func printInt() // a custom method
}
Here, those classes are all objects defined in CoreData, especially SuperClass is a abstract Entity. I want to extend some interfaces(the TestProtocol above) for SuperClass, so that I can use polymorphism. I come up with 2 methods:
Method 1: let SuperClass confirms TestProtocol.
extension SuperClass: TestProtocol {
var count: Int { return superInt }
func printInt() { print("Here is SuperClass. Count: \(count)") }
}
extension SubClass1 {
override var count: Int { return subInt1 }
override func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass1. Count is \(count)") }
}
extension SubClass2 {
override var count: Int { return subInt2 }
override func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass2. Count is \(count)") }
}
// Here is the test code
let subClasses: [SuperClass] = [SubClass1(), SubClass2()]
subClasses.forEach { $0.printInt() }
Method 2: Convert subClasses to a protocol object.
extension SubClass1: TestProtocol {
var count: Int { return subInt1 }
func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass1. Count is \(count)") }
}
extension SubClass2: TestProtocol {
var count: Int { return subInt2 }
func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass1. Count is \(count)") }
}
// Here is the test code
let subClasses: [SuperClass] = [SubClass1(), SubClass2()]
subClasses.forEach { ($0 as! TestProtocol).printInt() }
In method 1, everything looks good. But I have to implement the code in SuperClass which is totally useless. The method seems like a little trick of grammar.
In method 2, all code is useful, but the conversion at last line broke the elegance of code. It makes me crazy continuously using code like ($0 as! TestProtocol).printInt().
I'm not satisfied with both methods. So which is recommended way or is there a better way to do it?
In your second method you actually do not need to use casting (($0 as! TestProtocol).printInt()). Here is how:
let subClasses: [TestProtocol] = [SubClass1(), SubClass2()]
subClasses.forEach { $0.printInt() }
By typing the subClasses array to TestProtocol instead of SuperClass you can remove the need for casting because the compiler now knows that every element in subClasses conforms to TestProtocol and thus, has a method printInt().
Your super class does not serve any purpose in both method 1 and method 2. In both methods you have defined, you want to eventually call printInt() which should be common to all sub classes. Notice I have highlighted "should be common". The purpose of a protocol is to specify requirements that conforming types must implement. Therefore, a protocol is sufficient to form the contract that your classes 1 and 2 should implement var count and func printInt(). Also a protocol is a type, so you do not need a super class to hold references to the other two classes as you did here:
let subClasses: [SuperClass] = [SubClass1(), SubClass2()]
In my opinion, this would be a better way:
protocol TestProtocol {
var count: Int { get } // a computed property
func printInt() // a custom method
}
Class1: TestProtocol {
var subInt = 2
var count: Int { return subInt1 }
func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass1. Count is \(count)") }
}
Class2: TestProtocol {
var subInt = 3
var count: Int { return subInt2 }
func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass2. Count is \(count)") }
}
let smallClasses: [TestProtocol] = [Class1(), Class2()]
smallClasses.forEach { $0.printInt() }
This way of doing things fulfills the Protocol Oriented way of programming in Swift, which is the favored approach. Generally speaking, inheritance and subclassing is shunned in iOS design patterns and I will direct you to this blog post so you can learn more about why https://krakendev.io/blog/subclassing-can-suck-and-heres-why
EDIT
You have clarified your question a bit more so I am going to attempt to answer it better. You are looking for the equivalent of what is an abstract class in Java which are classes that contain one or more abstract methods. An abstract method in Java is a method that is declared, but contains no implementation. Abstract classes may not be instantiated, and require subclasses to provide implementations for the abstract methods.
Swift does not come with the same functionality but something that is functionaly equivalent would require a super class where all sub classes are forced to implement properties or methods that must be common to all sub classes. This is of course achieved by the protocol method I have shown above but you also require the ability to call properties or methods from the super class from the sub class which means each sub class must be able to cast as both the protocol type and the super class type.
Here is my solution to that written in Swift 3:
protocol TestProtocol {
var count: Int { get } // a computed property
func printInt() // a custom method
}
//base class
class SuperClass: TestProtocol {
var sharedInt: Int = 0
var subInt: Int = 1
var count: Int { return subInt }
func printInt() { print("Here is SubClass. Count is \(count)") }
}
class class1: SuperClass {
override init(){
super.init()
self.subInt = 2
}
}
class class2: SuperClass {
override init(){
super.init()
self.subInt = 3
}
}
//I can get count and printInt() which superClass, class1 and class2 share becuase of the protocol.
let smallClasses: [TestProtocol] = [SuperClass(), class1(), class2()]
smallClasses.forEach { $0.printInt() }
//I can convert the sub classes to super class type and call their printInt method
let smallClasses2: [SuperClass] = [class1(), class2()]
smallClasses2.forEach { $0.printInt() }
//I can get to the shared values the sub classes have from the super class
smallClasses2.forEach { print($0.sharedInt) }
If you copy and paste the code above into a Playground in Xcode, you will receive the following output:
Here is SubClass. Count is 1
Here is SubClass. Count is 2
Here is SubClass. Count is 3
Here is SubClass. Count is 2
Here is SubClass. Count is 3
0
0

How to make generics in collection type constraint?

I have been trying to extract non-nil values from the String array. Like below. But, my senior wants it to be able to extract non-nil values from other types too.
I read, generics could help me for handling different types. How can I use generics so that I get to use following like extension to work with other types too?
getNonNil must return the extracted non-nil values of the specific type (i.e. if array is [String?] it must return [String], returns [Int] if [Int?])
Because I have to do further calculations.
What I have tried is below:
import Foundation
// Extended the collection-type so that collectiontype is constrained to having element with optional strings
extension CollectionType where Self.Generator.Element == Optional<String>{
func getNonNil() -> [String] {
// filter out all nil elements and forcefully unwrap them using map
return self.filter({$0 != nil}).map({$0!})
}
}
// Usage
let x: [String?] = ["Er", "Err", nil, "errr"]
x.getNonNil().forEach { (str) in
print(str)
}
For getNonNil you could simply use
x.flatMap { $0 }
// returns ["Er", "Err", "errr"] which is [String]
For the original question, typically you could introduce a protocol to the Optional type (e.g. via the muukii/OptionalProtocol package):
protocol OptionalProtocol {
associatedtype Wrapped
var value: Wrapped? { get }
}
extension Optional: OptionalProtocol {
public var value: Wrapped? { return self }
}
extension CollectionType where Self.Generator.Element: OptionalProtocol {
func getNonNil() -> [Self.Generator.Element.Wrapped] {
...
}
}
There's no easy way of achieving this through an extension, as you cannot introduce new generic types into extensions (although this is part of the Swift Generics Manifesto – so may well be possibly in a future version of Swift).
As #kennytm says, the simplest solution is just to use flatMap, which filters out nil:
x.flatMap{$0}.forEach { (str) in
print(str)
}
If however, you still want this as an extension, you could use a protocol workaround in order to allow you to constrain the extension to any optional element type (Swift 3):
protocol _OptionalProtocol {
associatedtype Wrapped
func _asOptional() -> Wrapped?
}
extension Optional : _OptionalProtocol {
func _asOptional() -> Wrapped? {return self}
}
extension Collection where Self.Iterator.Element : _OptionalProtocol {
func getNonNil() -> [Iterator.Element.Wrapped] {
return flatMap{$0._asOptional()}
}
}
...
let x : [String?] = ["Er", "Err", nil, "errr"]
x.getNonNil().forEach { (str) in
print(str)
}
(In Swift 3, CollectionType has been renamed to Collection, and Generator is now Iterator)
Although flatMap is almost certainly preferred in this situation, I'm only really adding this for the sake of completion.
The easiest approach is using flatMap as kennytm suggested, but if you absolutely want to know how to create such a method using generics, one approach would be to create a global method that takes in the collection as a parameter:
public func getNonNil<T, C: CollectionType where C.Generator.Element == Optional<T>>(collection: C) -> [T] {
return collection.filter({$0 != nil}).map({$0!})
}
let x: [String?] = ["Er", "Err", nil, "errr"]
print(getNonNil(x)) // returns ["Er", "Err", "errr"]

Resources