Swift: static property in protocol extension CAN be overridden, but why? - ios

I watched "Protocol-Oriented Programming in Swift" and read the related docs, but I still think there is a conflict in the following sample code (try it in a Playground).
protocol X {
// The important part is "static" keyword
static var x: String { get }
}
extension X {
// Here "static" again
static var x: String {
get {
return "xxx"
}
}
}
// Now I'm going to use the protocol in a class, BUT
// in classes "static" is like "final class",
// i.e. CAN'T BE OVERRIDDEN, right?
// But I'd prefer to have the ability to override that property,
// so I'll try to use "class" keyword.
// Will it break the program? (spoiler: no!)
class Y: X {
// Here we are allowed to use "class" keyword (but why?).
class var x: String {
get {
return "yyy"
}
}
}
class Z: Y {
override class var x: String {
get {
return "zzz"
}
}
}
class Test<T: X> {
func test() -> String {
return T.x
}
}
// And finally the property is successfully overridden (but why?).
print(Test<Z>().test()) // "zzz\n"
Does this actually mean that static keyword from protocol (and possible default implementation) can be legitimately replaced with class keyword when the protocol used in classes? Do you know any references confirming that?

From Language Reference / Declarations we know the following.
Function Declaration
...
Special Kinds of Methods
...
Methods associated with a type rather than an instance of a type must be marked with the static declaration modifier for enumerations and structures or the class declaration modifier for classes.
I.e. the static keyword is (mainly) for enumerations and structures and the class keyword is for classes.
There is also such a note:
Type Variable Properties
...
NOTE
In a class declaration, the keyword static has the same effect as marking the declaration with both the class and final declaration modifiers.
I.e. the static keyword actually can be used in class declaration and will mean final class.
So what about protocols?
Protocol Method Declaration
...
To declare a class or static method requirement in a protocol declaration, mark the method declaration with the static declaration modifier. Classes that implement this method declare the method with the class modifier. Structures that implement it must declare the method with the static declaration modifier instead. If you’re implementing the method in an extension, use the class modifier if you’re extending a class and the static modifier if you’re extending a structure.
Here the docs state that we should replace the static keyword from protocol declaration with the class keyword when implementing the protocol in a class or a class extension (and this is the exact answer to the original question).
Bonus
There are two cases in which protocol adoption will be restricted to classes only. The first (and the least explicit) is when a protocol includes optional members:
Protocol Declaration
...
By default, types that conform to a protocol must implement all properties, methods, and subscripts declared in the protocol. That said, you can mark these protocol member declarations with the optional declaration modifier to specify that their implementation by a conforming type is optional. The optional modifier can be applied only to protocols that are marked with the objc attribute. As a result, only class types can adopt and conform to a protocol that contains optional member requirements. ...
And the second (explicit; the next paragraph):
To restrict the adoption of a protocol to class types only, mark the protocol with the class requirement by writing the class keyword as the first item in the inherited protocols list after the colon. ...
But neither of them changes the rules considering the static and the class keywords applicability.

Related

Get only property defined in protocol causes compilation error when modifying inner property of object

Consider code like this:
protocol SomeProtocol {
var something: Bool { get set }
}
class SomeProtocolImplementation: SomeProtocol {
var something: Bool = false {
didSet {
print("something changed!")
}
}
}
protocol MyProtocol {
var myProperty: SomeProtocol { get }
}
class MyClass: MyProtocol {
var myProperty: SomeProtocol = SomeProtocolImplementation() {
didSet {
print("myProperty has changed")
}
}
}
var o: MyProtocol = MyClass()
o.myProperty.something = true
This code doesn't compile with error:
error: cannot assign to property: 'myProperty' is a get-only property
o.myProperty.something = true
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
Why? My property is of type of SomeProtocolImplementation, which is class type so it should be possible to modify it's inner property using reference to myProperty.
Going further, after modifying myProperty definition so that it looks like that:
var myProperty: SomeProtocol { get set }
something weird happens. Now the code compile (not a surprise), but the output is:
something changed!
myProperty has changed
So at this point SomeProtocolImplementation starts behaving like a value type - modyifing it's internal state causes that the "didSet" callback for myProperty is triggered. Just as SomeProtocolImplementation would be struct...
I actually find the solution, but I want also understand what's going on. The solution is to modify SomeProtocol definition to:
protocol SomeProtocol: class {
var something: Bool { get set }
}
It works fine, but I'm trying to understand why it behaves like this. Anybody able to explain?
First read what Class Only Protocol is. Concentrate on the note section that says:
Use a class-only protocol when the behavior defined by that protocol’s requirements assumes or requires that a conforming type has reference semantics rather than value semantics.
Above quote should get you the idea.
You are trying to get the behavior of reference type for your SomeProtocol's conforming class (i.e. SomeProtocolImplementation). You want to be able to change the value of something in future. So basically you are directing to the above quoted sentence.
If you need more clarification please consider the following more meaningful design where I changed the naming for convenience:
protocol Base: class {
var referenceTypeProperty: Bool { get set }
// By now you are assuming: this property should be modifiable from any reference.
// So, instantly make the protocol `Class-only`
}
class BaseImplementation: Base {
var referenceTypeProperty: Bool = false {
didSet {
print("referenceTypeProperty did set")
}
}
}
protocol Child {
var valueTypeProperty: Base { get }
// This property shouldn't be modifiable from anywhere.
// So, you don't need to declare the protocol as Class-only
}
class ChildImplementation: Child {
var valueTypeProperty: Base = BaseImplementation() {
didSet {
print("valueTypeProperty did set")
}
}
}
let object: Child = ChildImplementation()
object.valueTypeProperty.referenceTypeProperty = true
Any class that can provide behavior useful to other classes may declare a programmatic interface for vending that behavior anonymously. Any other class may choose to adopt the protocol and implement one or more of its methods, thereby making use of the behavior. The class that declares a protocol is expected to call the methods in the protocol if they are implemented by the protocol adopter.
Protocol Apple Documentation
When you try to 'set' value to a variable that is read-only - you are trying to change the protocol's implementation. Conforming classes can only consume information from protocol. In Swift we can write protocol extensions where we can have alternative methods for the protocol.
In short think of computed variables as functions. You are technically trying to change a function in this case.
I actually find the solution, but I want also understand what's going on.
I was just about to tell you to make SomeProtocol a class protocol, but you already figured that out. — So I'm a little confused as to what you don't understand.
You understand about reference types and value types, and you understand about class protocols and nonclass protocols.
Well, as long as SomeProtocol might be adopted by a struct (it's a nonclass protocol), then if you are typing something as a SomeProtocol, it is a value type. The runtime isn't going to switch on reference type behavior just because the adopter turns out to be a class instance; all the decisions must be made at compile time. And at compile time, all the compiler knows is that this thing is a SomeProtocol, whose adopter might be a struct.

Hide logic that class conforms to protocol

Are there any ways to hide that class conforms to some protocol? Like in Objective-C - just used to add Protocol in .m file and other classes (from another files) didn't see it.
For example. I have a test cell which has a textfield. I want to hide, that this cell conforms to protocol. Something like that:
class TestCell: UITableViewCell {
}
fileprivate extension TestCell : UITextFieldDelegate {
}
But compiler swears me. Any elegant solution?
This capability has been stated by the Swift team as "unlikely" to be implemented. Here is the original thread about it: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160229/011666.html
The specific statement about this particular scenario was:
Private conformances
Right now, a protocol conformance can be no less visible than the
minimum of the conforming type’s access and the protocol’s access.
Therefore, a public type conforming to a public protocol must provide
the conformance publicly. One could imagine removing that restriction,
so that one could introduce a private conformance:
public protocol P { }
public struct X { }
extension X : internal P { … } // X conforms to P, but only within this module
The main problem with private conformances is the interaction with
dynamic casting. If I have this code:
func foo(value: Any) {
if let x = value as? P { print(“P”) }
}
foo(X())
Under what circumstances should it print “P”? If foo() is defined
within the same module as the conformance of X to P? If the call is
defined within the same module as the conformance of X to P? Never?
Either of the first two answers requires significant complications in
the dynamic casting infrastructure to take into account the module in
which a particular dynamic cast occurred (the first option) or where
an existential was formed (the second option), while the third answer
breaks the link between the static and dynamic type systems—none of
which is an acceptable result.

Swift Declare Class Func in Protocol

I had following confusion. As far as I know the main difference between static and class keywords when declaring method is that the second one could be overridden in subclasses.
The problem
However when I declare a protocol in Swift 1.2 like this:
protocol MyProtocol
{
class func dummyClassMethod()
}
compiler gives an error:
Class methods are only allowed within classes; use 'static' to declare
a static method
The error is pretty descriptive as obviously MyProtocol is not a class, however I want to make a class func part of the protocol.
What I've tried
I've found that if I declare interface in protocol as static, compiler is happy and I could use this static method in all classes that adopt this protocol:
protocol MyProtocol
{
static func dummyClassMethod()
}
The question
So my question basically is is this right? This declaration states that my class method cannot be overridden in children, however in my implementation I could write and use the following:
class ClassA: MyProtocol
{
class func dummyClassMethod() {
}
}
class ClassB: ClassA
{
override class func dummyClassMethod() {
}
}
and now my dummyClassMethod is not static anymore...
Compiler is Ok and everything works - but why?
Is it specific to the fact that interface itself is static, however
it's implementation is not?
Is there a better alternative for class func in protocols?
Objective-C solution
In ObjC this is pretty easy and compile & run flawlessly:
#protocol MyProtocol
+(void)dummyClassMethod;
#end
You can review Apple's Documentation (subsection Method Requirements).
There says:
As with type property requirements, you always prefix type method requirements with the static keyword when they are defined in a protocol. This is true even though type method requirements are prefixed with the class or static keyword when implemented by a class
In practice, You can do it as follow:
First, declare your protocol:
protocol SomeProtocol {
static func someMethod()
}
Then, in your class you've 2 options:
First:
class SomeClass : SomeProtocol {
class func someMethod()
}
Second:
class SomeClass : SomeProtocol {
static func someMethod()
}
I hope, this may clarify your doubt..
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Protocols.html
A protocol defines a blueprint of methods, properties, and other
requirements that suit a particular task or piece of functionality.
The protocol doesn’t actually provide an implementation for any of
these requirements—it only describes what an implementation will look
like. The protocol can then be adopted by a class, structure, or
enumeration to provide an actual implementation of those requirements.
After this protocol definition it becomes reasonable that
As with type property requirements, you always prefix type method
requirements with the static keyword when they are defined in a
protocol. This is true even though type method requirements are
prefixed with the class or static keyword when implemented by a class...
To make protocol method static and final implement that method with static keyword
class ClassA: MyProtocol{
static func dummyClassMethod() {
}
}
and now you cant override dummyClassMethod function anymore. If you want to prevent overriding only you must declare protocol method as final. About class functions, they were not fully supported in Swift 1.0 and now in Swift 1.2 I think that they are moving towards static functions

How to define an array of objects conforming to a protocol?

Given:
protocol MyProtocol {
typealias T
var abc: T { get }
}
And a class that implements MyProtocol:
class XYZ: MyProtocol {
typealias T = SomeObject
var abc: T { /* Implementation */ }
}
How can I define an array of objects conforming to MyProtocol?
var list = [MyProtocol]()
Gives (together with a ton of SourceKit crashes) the following error:
Protocol 'MyProtocol' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Even though the typealias is in fact defined in MyProtocol.
Is there a way to have a list of object conforming to a protocol AND having a generic constraint?
The problem is about using the generics counterpart for protocols, type aliases.
It sounds weird, but if you define a type alias, you cannot use the protocol as a type, which means you cannot declare a variable of that protocol type, a function parameter, etc. And you cannot use it as the generic object of an array.
As the error say, the only usage you can make of it is as a generic constraint (like in class Test<T:ProtocolWithAlias>).
To prove that, just remove the typealias from your protocol (note, this is just to prove, it's not a solution):
protocol MyProtocol {
var abc: Int { get }
}
and modify the rest of your sample code accordingly:
class XYZ: MyProtocol {
var abc: Int { return 32 }
}
var list = [MyProtocol]()
You'll notice that it works.
You are probably more interested in how to solve this problem. I can't think of any elegant solution, just the following 2:
remove the typealias from the protocol and replace T with AnyObject (ugly solution!!)
turn the protocol into a class (but that's not a solution that works in all cases)
but as you may argue, I don't like any of them. The only suggestion I can provide is to rethink of your design and figure out if you can use a different way (i.e. not using typealiased protocol) to achieve the same result.

Swift func that takes a Metatype?

As Apple says in the Metatype Type section in Swift's docs:
A metatype type refers to the type of any type, including class types, structure types, enumeration types, and protocol types.
Is there a base class to refer to any class, struct, enum, or protocol (eg MetaType)?
My understanding is that protocol types are limited to use as a generic constraint, because of Self or associated type requirements (well, this is what an Xcode error was telling me).
So, with that in mind, maybe there is a Class base class for identifying class references? Or a Type base class for all constructable types (class, struct, enum)? Other possibilities could be Protocol, Struct, Enum, and Closure.
See this example if you don't get what I mean yet.
func funcWithType (type: Type) {
// I could store this Type reference in an ivar,
// as an associated type on a per-instance level.
// (if this func was in a class, of course)
self.instanceType = type
}
funcWithType(String.self)
funcWithType(CGRect.self)
While generics work great with 1-2 constant associated types, I wouldn't mind being able to treat associated types as instance variables.
Thanks for any advice!
This works:
func funcWithType (type: Any.Type) {
}
funcWithType(String.self)
funcWithType(CGRect.self)
Given your example an implementation would be:
// protocol that requires an initializer so you can later call init from the type
protocol Initializeable {
init()
}
func funcWithType (type: Initializeable.Type) {
// make a new instance of the type
let instanceType = type()
// in Swift 2 you have to explicitly call the initializer:
let instanceType = type.init()
// in addition you can call any static method or variable of the type (in this case nothing because Initializeable doesn't declare any)
}
// make String and CGRect conform to the protocol
extension String: Initializeable {}
extension CGRect: Initializeable {}
funcWithType(String.self)
funcWithType(CGRect.self)

Resources