I have these structs I want to mutate:
public struct CheckoutViewModel {
var sections: [Section]
var total: String
public struct Section {
var title: String
var description: String
var kind: Kind
var expandState: ExpandState
enum Kind {
case products([ProductOrderViewModel])
case shippingMode(SelectableArray<ShippingMode>)
case shippingTarget(SelectableArray<ShippingKind>)
case billingAddress(SelectableArray<Address>)
case payment(SelectableArray<PaymentProvider>)
case promoCode(String?)
case legalAdvice(userAccepted: Bool)
}
}
}
struct SelectableArray<T> {
var selectedIndex: Int?
let options: [T]
init(options: [T]) {
self.options = options
self.selectedIndex = nil
}
mutating func select(atIndex: Int) throws -> T {
guard atIndex < options.count else {
throw SelectableArrayError.outOfBoundsIndex
}
selectedIndex = atIndex
return options[atIndex]
}
var selectedElement: T? {
guard let selectedIndex = selectedIndex else { return nil }
return options[selectedIndex]
}
}
I want to use this mutating func select() method inside SelectableArray, I am calling it from a chain of mutating functions (because Sections is nested inside a struct)
extension CheckoutViewModel {
mutating func select(atIndexPath indexPath: IndexPath) {
sections[indexPath.section].select(atIndex: indexPath.row)
}
}
extension CheckoutViewModel.Section {
mutating func select(atIndex idx: Int) {
switch kind {
case .shippingMode(var modes):
do { _ = try modes.select(atIndex: idx) } catch { return }
default:
return nil
}
dump(self) // Here self hasn't changed
}
}
The problem is that the CheckoutViewModel struct is never mutated. I am guessing that switch is not a mutating function, so var modes inside that switch is non mutable and then it does not matter if the following functions mutate anything. The workaround I managed to do is this:
mutating func select(atIndex idx: Int) {
switch kind {
case .shippingMode(var modes):
do {
_ = try modes.select(atIndex: idx)
self.kind = .shippingMode(modes)
} catch { return }
default:
return
}
}
Do you have any oher solution to this problem? Is there any sort of mutating switch function that I can use?
According to The Swift Programming Language:
A switch case can bind the value or values it matches to temporary
constants or variables, for use in the body of the case. This behavior
is known as value binding, because the values are bound to temporary
constants or variables within the case’s body.
Changes to such a temporary variable (e.g. the modes variable) do not affect the contents of the enum that is being switched on (e.g. kind).
For your first approach to work you would indeed need a different sort of switch statement that creates a reference to the enum's associated value, allowing you to modify that value in place. Such a statement doesn't exist in Swift 3.0.1.
Related
What is the proper way to declare a function that return a Sequence in Swift 4. I tried the following but receive a error stating:
error: Models.playground:29:13: error: cannot convert return expression of type 'Cars' to return type 'S'
return Cars(cars)
^~~~~~~~~~
as! S
Here is the code I used:
import Foundation
struct Car {
let make:String
let model:String
}
class Cars: Sequence, IteratorProtocol {
typealias Element = Car
var current = 0
let cars:[Element]
init(_ cars:[Element]) {
self.cars = cars;
}
func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
current = 0
return self
}
func next() -> Element? {
if current < cars.count {
defer { current += 1 }
return cars[current]
} else {
return nil
}
}
}
let cars = Cars([Car(make:"Buick", model:"Century"), Car(make:"Buick", model:"LaSabre")])
func getCars<S:Sequence>(cars:[Car]) -> S where S.Iterator.Element == Car {
return Cars(cars)
}
The return value cannot be a specialization of the Sequence protocol.
You can either return Cars itself, as Daniel suggested, or –
if you want to hide the implementation of the sequence – a
“type-erased” sequence:
func getCars(cars:[Car]) -> AnySequence<Car> {
return AnySequence(Cars(cars))
}
or even
func getCars(cars:[Car]) -> AnySequence<Car> {
return AnySequence(cars)
}
AnySequence is a
generic struct conforming to the Sequence protocol which forwards
to the underlying sequence or iterator from which it was created.
See also A Little Respect for AnySequence
for more examples.
Remark: Similarly, it is possible to make Cars a Sequence
by returning a type-erased iterator which forwards to the array
iterator:
class Cars: Sequence {
typealias Element = Car
let cars: [Element]
init(_ cars: [Element]) {
self.cars = cars;
}
func makeIterator() -> AnyIterator<Element> {
return AnyIterator(cars.makeIterator())
}
}
The problem is that you are using a generic for a specific type. You can either return a Cars element (note that Cars conforms to Sequence, so you are returning a Sequence here):
func getCars(cars: [Car]) -> Cars {
return Cars(cars)
}
or use a generic (also a Sequence, since it is defined in the generic):
func getCars<S: Sequence>(cars: [Car]) -> S {
return cars as! S
}
protocol ParentProtocol { }
protocol ChildProtocol: ParentProtocol { }
protocol Child_With_Value_Protocol: ParentProtocol {
associatedType Value
func retrieveValue() -> Value
}
Attempting to create a single array of type ParentProtocol that contains both ChildProtocol and Child_With_Value_Protocol. Is there any possible way to create a function that loops through the heterogeneous array and returns the values of just type Child_With_Value_Protocol?
This may require an architecture change. Open to all solutions.
Attempted Failed Solution #1
var parents: [ParentProtocol] = [...both ChildProtocol & Child_With_Value_Protocol...]
func retrieveValues() -> [Any] {
var values = [Any]()
for parent in parents {
if let childWithValue = parent as? Child_With_Value_Protocol { // Fails to compile
values.append(childWithValue.retrieveValue())
}
}
return values
}
This fails with an error of protocol 'Child_With_Value_Protocol' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements which makes sense since the compiler would not know the type when converted to just Child_With_Value_Protocol, this leads to the next failed solution.
Attempted Failed Solution #2
If the array was a homogeneous array of just Child_With_Value_Protocol, type erasing could be used to retrieve the values.
var parents: [ParentProtocol] = [...both ChildProtocol & Child_With_Value_Protocol...]
struct AnyValue {
init<T: Child_With_Value_Protocol>(_ protocol: T) {
_retrieveValue = protocol.retrieveValue as () -> Any
}
func retrieveValue() -> Any { return _retrieveValue() }
let _retrieveValue: () -> Any
}
func retrieveValues() -> [Any] {
var values = [Any]()
for parent in parents {
values.append(AnyValue(parent).retrieveValue()) // Fails to compile
}
return values
}
This fails to compile due to the fact that the struct AnyValue has no initializer for the ParentProtocol.
Attempted Failed Solution #3
struct AnyValue {
init<T: Child_With_Value_Protocol>(_ protocol: T) {
_retrieveValue = protocol.retrieveValue as () -> Any
}
func retrieveValue() -> Any { return _retrieveValue() }
let _retrieveValue: () -> Any
}
var erased: [AnyValue] = [AnyValue(...), AnyValue(...), AnyValue(...)]
func retrieveValues() -> [Any] {
var values = [Any]()
for value in erased {
values.append(value.retrieveValue())
}
return values
}
Unlike the other solutions, this solution actually compiles. Problem with this solution resides in the fact that the array erased can only hold values of the type-erased versions of Child_With_Value_Protocol. The goal is for the array to hold types of both Child_With_Value_Protocol and ChildProtocol.
Attempted Failed Solution #4
Modifying the type-erase struct to include an initializer for ParentProtocol still creates a solution that compiles, but then the struct will only use the less specific init, instead of the more specific init.
struct AnyValue {
init?<T: ParentProtocol>(_ protocol: T) {
return nil
}
init?<T: Child_With_Value_Protocol>(_ protocol: T) {
_retrieveValue = protocol.retrieveValue as () -> Any
}
func retrieveValue() -> Any { return _retrieveValue() }
let _retrieveValue: (() -> Any)?
}
The prior comments are likely right. Nevertheless, you could box the variants in an enum and create an array of those. The reference would then switch on the enum value, each having associated data of the right type
EDIT: I didn't bother with the associatedValue, because it seems irrelevant to the question being asked. The following works in a playground:
protocol ParentProtocol: CustomStringConvertible {
static func retrieveValues(parents: [FamilyBox]) -> [ParentProtocol]
}
protocol ChildProtocol: ParentProtocol { }
protocol Other_Child_Protocol: ParentProtocol { }
enum FamilyBox {
case Parent(parent: ParentProtocol)
case Child(child: ChildProtocol)
case OtherChildProtocol(withValue: Other_Child_Protocol)
}
var parents: [FamilyBox] = []
struct P: ParentProtocol {
var description: String { return "Parent" }
static func retrieveValues(parents: [FamilyBox]) -> [ParentProtocol] {
var values = [ParentProtocol]()
for parent in parents {
switch parent {
case .Parent(let elementValue):
values.append(elementValue)
default:
break;
}
}
return values
}
}
struct C: ChildProtocol {
var description: String { return "Child" }
static func retrieveValues(parents: [FamilyBox]) -> [ParentProtocol] {
var values = [ParentProtocol]()
for parent in parents {
switch parent {
case .Child(let elementValue):
values.append(elementValue)
default:
break;
}
}
return values
}
}
struct CV: Other_Child_Protocol {
var description: String { return "Other Child" }
static func retrieveValues(parents: [FamilyBox]) -> [ParentProtocol] {
var values = [ParentProtocol]()
for parent in parents {
switch parent {
case .OtherChildProtocol(let elementValue):
values.append(elementValue)
default:
break;
}
}
return values
}
}
let p = FamilyBox.Parent(parent: P())
let c = FamilyBox.Child(child: C())
let cv = FamilyBox.OtherChildProtocol(withValue: CV())
let array:[FamilyBox] = [p, c, cv]
print(P.retrieveValues(array))
print(C.retrieveValues(array))
print(CV.retrieveValues(array))
The prints from the last three lines are:
[Parent]
[Child]
[Other Child]
While I'm sure it can be improved, I think that meets the original intent. No?
I'm new to Swift and iOS programming.
I'm trying to test out a simple algorithm and need an array of Stacks. Don't have to be anything fancy (Stacks of Ints will do).
I got the Stack implementation from The Swift Programming Language documentation:
struct IntStack {
var items = [Int]()
mutating func push(item: Int) {
items.append(item)
}
mutating func pop() -> Int {
return items.removeLast()
}
mutating func count() -> Int {
return items.count
}
mutating func show() {
println(items)
}
}
The count and show functions are my contribution. But when I try to declare an array of Stacks I get an error...
var lines = IntStack()[5]
"IntStack" does not have a member named subscript
I'm guessing it has something to do with Optionals but can figure out what it is.
Any help?
Details
Swift 5.1, Xcode 11.3.1
Generic Stack Implementation
Stackable protocol
protocol Stackable {
associatedtype Element
func peek() -> Element?
mutating func push(_ element: Element)
#discardableResult mutating func pop() -> Element?
}
extension Stackable {
var isEmpty: Bool { peek() == nil }
}
Stack
struct Stack<Element>: Stackable where Element: Equatable {
private var storage = [Element]()
func peek() -> Element? { storage.last }
mutating func push(_ element: Element) { storage.append(element) }
mutating func pop() -> Element? { storage.popLast() }
}
extension Stack: Equatable {
static func == (lhs: Stack<Element>, rhs: Stack<Element>) -> Bool { lhs.storage == rhs.storage }
}
extension Stack: CustomStringConvertible {
var description: String { "\(storage)" }
}
extension Stack: ExpressibleByArrayLiteral {
init(arrayLiteral elements: Self.Element...) { storage = elements }
}
Usage
var stack = Stack<Int>()
stack.push(1)
stack.push(2)
stack.push(3)
print(stack.peek())
print(stack.pop())
print(stack)
print(stack == Stack<Int>())
stack = [3,2,1]
print(stack)
There's no problem with what you're doing there - that's just not the syntax for declaring an array. If you want an array of 5 stacks, you can do this:
[IntStack(), IntStack(), IntStack(), IntStack(), IntStack()]
Or, you can initialise the array like this:
Array(count: 5, repeatedValue: IntStack())
Also, you don't need to mark your functions as mutating unless they actually mutate the structure - so count() and show() don't need it.
It's possible to just extend arrays with stack specific methods. This might or might not be what you want, depending on if you want to disallow array like access.
protocol Stack {
associatedtype Element
mutating func push(item: Element)
// allows discarding the result without generating a warning.
#discardableResult
mutating func pop() -> Element?
func peek() -> Element?
var count: Int { get }
}
extension Array: Stack {
mutating func push(item: Element) {
self.append(item)
}
mutating func pop() -> Element? {
if let last = self.last {
self.remove(at: self.count - 1)
return last
}
return .none
}
func peek() -> Element? {
self.last
}
}
Simple test case:
class StackTests: XCTestCase {
func testExample() throws {
var stack = Array<Int>()
XCTAssertEqual(stack.peek(), .none, "stack is empty, peek returns none")
XCTAssertEqual(stack.pop(), .none, "stack is empty, pop returns none")
stack.push(item: 0)
stack.push(item: 1)
stack.push(item: 2)
XCTAssertEqual(stack.peek(), 2)
XCTAssertEqual(stack.pop(), 2)
XCTAssertEqual(stack.peek(), 1)
XCTAssertEqual(stack.pop(), 1)
XCTAssertEqual(stack.peek(), 0)
XCTAssertEqual(stack.pop(), 0)
}
}
There is no need to declare the size of the stack when you init it. Jus calling this should be enough.
var lines = IntStack()
Also note that your count() and show() methods should not be mutating since they don't modify the struct in any way.
Just look into this code. Stack example with generic data type and without using the array.
class Node<T>: CustomStringConvertible {
let value: T
var next: Node?
var description: String {
guard let next = next else { return "\(value)" }
return "\(value)\n" + String(describing: next)
}
init(value: T) {
self.value = value
}
}
// Stack class to hold all items
class Stack<T>: CustomStringConvertible {
var top: Node<T>?
var description: String {
guard let top = top else { return "---- Stack is EMPTY ----" }
return "---- Stack Begin ----\n" + String(describing: top) + "\n---- Stack End ----"
}
// push
func push(_ value: T) {
let currentTop = top
top = Node(value: value)
top?.next = currentTop
}
#discardableResult
func pop() -> T? {
let currentTop = top
top = top?.next
return currentTop?.value
}
#discardableResult
func peek() -> T? {
return top?.value
}
}
Excellent implementation! One thought: I think it should be:
func peek() -> Element? { storage.last }
Here is a Stack implementation using Swift Generics,
struct Fruit {
let fruitName : String
let color : String
init(_ name: String,_ color: String) {
self.fruitName = name
self.color = color
}
}
let fruit1 = Fruit("Apple", "Red")
let fruit2 = Fruit("Grapes", "Green")
let fruitStack = Stack<Fruit>()
fruitStack.push(fruit1)
fruitStack.push(fruit2)
let fruitFfromStack = fruitStack.pop()
print("Fruit popped from Stack, Name : \(String(describing: fruitFfromStack?.fruitName)) ,Color : \(String(describing: fruitFfromStack?.color))")
let fruitFfromStack1 = fruitStack.pop()
print("Fruit popped from Stack, Name : \(String(describing: fruitFfromStack1?.fruitName)) ,Color : \(String(describing: fruitFfromStack1?.color))")
Full code is here :
https://reactcodes.blogspot.com/2019/01/generic-stack-implementation-with.html
I m trying to implement Queue collection type in Swift platform. I have got some problems about peek, poll and offer functions. When I try to use these functions in my code, it fails. Do you have any advice or true algorithm for that?
import Foundation
class Node<T> {
var value: T? = nil
var next: Node<T>? = nil
var prev: Node<T>? = nil
init() {
}
init(value: T) {
self.value = value
}
}
class Queue<T> {
var count: Int = 0
var head: Node<T> = Node<T>()
var tail: Node<T> = Node<T>()
var currentNode : Node<T> = Node<T>()
init() {
}
func isEmpty() -> Bool {
return self.count == 0
}
func next(index:Int) -> T? {
if isEmpty() {
return nil
} else if self.count == 1 {
var temp: Node<T> = currentNode
return temp.value
} else if index == self.count{
return currentNode.value
}else {
var temp: Node<T> = currentNode
currentNode = currentNode.next!
return temp.value
}
}
func setCurrentNode(){
currentNode = head
}
func enQueue(key: T) {
var node = Node<T>(value: key)
if self.isEmpty() {
self.head = node
self.tail = node
} else {
node.next = self.head
self.head.prev = node
self.head = node
}
self.count++
}
func deQueue() -> T? {
if self.isEmpty() {
return nil
} else if self.count == 1 {
var temp: Node<T> = self.tail
self.count--
return temp.value
} else {
var temp: Node<T> = self.tail
self.tail = self.tail.prev!
self.count--
return temp.value
}
}
//retrieve the top most item
func peek() -> T? {
if isEmpty() {
return nil
}
return head.value!
}
func poll() -> T? {
if isEmpty() {
return nil
}else{
var temp:T = head.value!
deQueue()
return temp
}
}
func offer(var key:T)->Bool{
var status:Bool = false;
self.enQueue(key)
status = true
return status
}
}
Aside from the bugs, there are a couple of things about your implementation that you probably want to change to make it more Swift-like. One is it looks like you're replicating the Java names like poll and offer – these names are (IMHO) a little strange, and partly related to needing to have two functions, an exception-throwing version and a non-exception version. Since Swift doesn't have exceptions, you can probably just name them using the conventional names other Swift collections use, like append.
The other issue is that your implementation incorporates traversing the queue into the queue itself. It's better to do this kind of traversal outside the collection than mix the two. Swift collections do this with indexes.
Here's a possible Swift-like queue implementation. First, the node and base queue definition:
// singly rather than doubly linked list implementation
// private, as users of Queue never use this directly
private final class QueueNode<T> {
// note, not optional – every node has a value
var value: T
// but the last node doesn't have a next
var next: QueueNode<T>? = nil
init(value: T) { self.value = value }
}
// Ideally, Queue would be a struct with value semantics but
// I'll leave that for now
public final class Queue<T> {
// note, these are both optionals, to handle
// an empty queue
private var head: QueueNode<T>? = nil
private var tail: QueueNode<T>? = nil
public init() { }
}
Then, extend with an append and dequeue method:
extension Queue {
// append is the standard name in Swift for this operation
public func append(newElement: T) {
let oldTail = tail
self.tail = QueueNode(value: newElement)
if head == nil { head = tail }
else { oldTail?.next = self.tail }
}
public func dequeue() -> T? {
if let head = self.head {
self.head = head.next
if head.next == nil { tail = nil }
return head.value
}
else {
return nil
}
}
}
At this point, you're almost done if all you want to do is add and remove. To add traversal, first create an index type, which is a simple wrapper on the node type:
public struct QueueIndex<T>: ForwardIndexType {
private let node: QueueNode<T>?
public func successor() -> QueueIndex<T> {
return QueueIndex(node: node?.next)
}
}
public func ==<T>(lhs: QueueIndex<T>, rhs: QueueIndex<T>) -> Bool {
return lhs.node === rhs.node
}
Then, use this index to conform to MutableCollectionType:
extension Queue: MutableCollectionType {
public typealias Index = QueueIndex<T>
public var startIndex: Index { return Index(node: head) }
public var endIndex: Index { return Index(node: nil) }
public subscript(idx: Index) -> T {
get {
precondition(idx.node != nil, "Attempt to subscript out of bounds")
return idx.node!.value
}
set(newValue) {
precondition(idx.node != nil, "Attempt to subscript out of bounds")
idx.node!.value = newValue
}
}
typealias Generator = IndexingGenerator<Queue>
public func generate() -> Generator {
return Generator(self)
}
}
From conforming to collection type, you get a whole load of stuff for free:
var q = Queue<String>()
q.append("one")
q.append("two")
for x in q {
println(x)
}
isEmpty(q) // returns false
first(q) // returns Optional("one")
count(q) // returns 2
",".join(q) // returns "one,two"
let x = find(q, "two") // returns index of second entry
let counts = map(q) { count($0) } // returns [3,3]
Finally, there's 3 more protocols that are good to conform to: ExtensibleCollectionType, Printable and ArrayLiteralConvertible:
// init() and append() requirements are already covered
extension Queue: ExtensibleCollectionType {
public func reserveCapacity(n: Index.Distance) {
// do nothing
}
public func extend<S : SequenceType where S.Generator.Element == T>
(newElements: S) {
for x in newElements {
self.append(x)
}
}
}
extension Queue: ArrayLiteralConvertible {
public convenience init(arrayLiteral elements: T...) {
self.init()
// conformance to ExtensibleCollectionType makes this easy
self.extend(elements)
}
}
extension Queue: Printable {
// pretty easy given conformance to CollectionType
public var description: String {
return "[" + ", ".join(map(self,toString)) + "]"
}
}
These mean you can now create queues as easily arrays or sets:
var q: Queue = [1,2,3]
println(q) // prints [1, 2, 3]
There are a lot of little issues regarding the internal consistency of your model:
When you first instantiate a new Queue, you are initializing head, tail and current to three different Node objects (even though nothing's been queued yet!). That doesn't make sense. Personally, I'd be inclined to make those three properties optional and leave them as nil until you start enqueuing stuff.
By the way, when you start using optionals for these properties, many of the other methods are simplified.
It looks like you're trying to implement a doubly linked list. So, when you dequeue, you need to not only update the Queue properties, but you also need to update the next pointer for the next item that will be dequeued (because it still will be pointing to that item you already dequeued). You don't want your linked list maintaining references to objects that have been dequeued and should be removed.
When you dequeue the last item, you really should be clearing out head and tail references.
You're implementing a doubly linked list, without regard to the object ownership model. Thus, as soon as you have more than one item in your list, you've got a strong reference cycle between nodes and if not remedied, this will leak if there are still objects in the queue when the queue, itself, is deallocated. Consider making one of the references weak or unowned.
I'd suggest keeping this simple (just enqueue and dequeue). The concept of poll and offer may make sense in terms of an arbitrary linked list, but not in the context of a queue. The implementations of poll and offer are also incorrect (e.g. poll calls deQueue which removes the tail, but the object you return is the head!), but I presume you'd just remove these functions altogether. Likewise, I do not understand the intent of current in the context of a queue.
I'd suggest you make Queue and Node conform to Printable. It will simplify your debugging process.
The following is code of a playground consisting of a queue implemented with an array and a queue implemented with nodes. There are substantial performance differences between the two but if you going to be iterating through a queue you might want to use one with an array.
import UIKit // for NSDate() used in testing)
// QUEUE WITH ARRAY IMPLEMENTATION (For ease of adaptibility, slow enque, faster deque):
struct QueueArray<T> {
private var items = [T]()
mutating func enQueue(item: T) {
items.append(item)
}
mutating func deQueue() -> T? {
return items.removeFirst()
}
func isEmpty() -> Bool {
return items.isEmpty
}
func peek() -> T? {
return items.first
}
}
// QUEUE WITH NODE IMPLEMENTATION (For performance, if all you need is a queue this is it):
class QNode<T> {
var value: T
var next: QNode?
init(item:T) {
value = item
}
}
struct Queue<T> {
private var top: QNode<T>!
private var bottom: QNode<T>!
init() {
top = nil
bottom = nil
}
mutating func enQueue(item: T) {
let newNode:QNode<T> = QNode(item: item)
if top == nil {
top = newNode
bottom = top
return
}
bottom.next = newNode
bottom = newNode
}
mutating func deQueue() -> T? {
let topItem: T? = top?.value
if topItem == nil {
return nil
}
if let nextItem = top.next {
top = nextItem
} else {
top = nil
bottom = nil
}
return topItem
}
func isEmpty() -> Bool {
return top == nil ? true : false
}
func peek() -> T? {
return top?.value
}
}
// QUEUE NODES TEST
let testAmount = 100
var queueNodes = Queue<Int>()
let queueNodesEnqueStart = NSDate()
for i in 0...testAmount {
queueNodes.enQueue(i)
}
let queueNodesEnqueEnd = NSDate()
while !queueNodes.isEmpty() {
queueNodes.deQueue()
}
let queueNodesDequeEnd = NSDate()
// QUEUE ARRAY TEST
var queueArray = QueueArray<Int>()
let queueArrayEnqueStart = NSDate()
for i in 0...testAmount {
queueArray.enQueue(i)
}
let queueArrayEnqueEnd = NSDate()
while !queueArray.isEmpty() {
queueArray.deQueue()
}
let queueArrayDequeEnd = NSDate()
// QUEUE NODES RESULT:
print("queueEnqueDuration: \(queueNodesEnqueEnd.timeIntervalSinceDate(queueNodesEnqueStart)), Deque: \(queueNodesDequeEnd.timeIntervalSinceDate(queueNodesEnqueEnd))")
// QUEUE ARRAY RESULT:
print("queueArrayEnqueDuration: \(queueArrayEnqueEnd.timeIntervalSinceDate(queueArrayEnqueStart)), Deque: \(queueArrayDequeEnd.timeIntervalSinceDate(queueArrayEnqueEnd))")
Queue with Array
struct Queue<T> {
private var list = [T]()
var isEmpty: Bool { return self.list.isEmpty }
var front: T? { return self.list.first }
mutating func enqueue(_ item: T) {
self.list.append(item)
}
mutating func dequeue() -> T? {
guard self.isEmpty == false else { return nil }
return self.list.removeFirst()
}
}
Swift 4 simple Stack for any type; string, int, array, etc.
struct Stack<Element> {
var items = [Element]()
mutating func push(_ item: Element) {
items.append(item)
}
mutating func pop() -> Element {
return items.removeLast()
}
mutating func peek() -> Element {
return items.last!
}
mutating func pushFirst(_ item: Element) {
items.insert(item, at: 0)
}
}
example with strings:
let names = ["Bob", "Sam", "Sue", "Greg", "Brian", "Dave"]
//create stack of string type
var stackOfStrings = Stack<String>()
//add to bottom of stack
for stringName in names {
stackOfStrings.push(stringName)
}
//print and remove from stack
for stringName in names {
print(stringName)
stackOfStrings.pop(stringName)
}
//add to top of stack
for stringName in names {
stackOfStrings.pushFirst(stringName)
}
//look at item in stack without pop
for stringName in names {
//see what Top item is without remove
let whatIsTopItem = stackOfStrings.peek(stringName)
if whatIsTopItem == "Bob" {
print("Best friend Bob is in town!")
}
}
//stack size
let stackCount = stackOfStrings.items.count
more info here:
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Generics.html
I wanted to be notified when an element added/removed from an array. If we are not talking about arrays, for example to be notified when a string is changed, there is a good solution in swift:
private var privateWord: String?
var word: String? {
get {
return privateWord
}
set {
if newValue != "" {
notifyThatWordIsChanged()
} else {
notifyThatWordIsEmpty()
}
privateWord = newValue
}
}
Can we achive a similar result, when I add/remove an element to an array?
You can create proxy like class/struct that will have same interface as array, will store standard array under the scenes and will act on behalf of store array. Here is small example:
struct ArrayProxy<T> {
var array: [T] = []
mutating func append(newElement: T) {
self.array.append(newElement)
print("Element added")
}
mutating func removeAtIndex(index: Int) {
print("Removed object \(self.array[index]) at index \(index)")
self.array.removeAtIndex(index)
}
subscript(index: Int) -> T {
set {
print("Set object from \(self.array[index]) to \(newValue) at index \(index)")
self.array[index] = newValue
}
get {
return self.array[index]
}
}
}
var a = ArrayProxy<Int>()
a.append(1)