I got stuck by the question in swift. Suppose I have one object, how to check whether it is from struct or class in swift.
In Swift 3.0, you can call Mirror(reflecting:x).displayStyle where x is your value of interest. The result will be class, struct, enum, dictionary, set... see the documentation https://developer.apple.com/reference/swift/mirror.displaystyle
Code sample:
struct SomeStruct {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
var astruct = SomeStruct(name:"myname")
Mirror(reflecting:astruct).displayStyle == .struct // will be true
Mirror(reflecting:astruct).displayStyle == .class; // will be false
class MyClass {
var name:String
init(name: String) {
self.name=name
}
}
var aclass = MyClass(name:"fsdfd")
Mirror(reflecting:aclass).displayStyle == .struct // will be false
Mirror(reflecting:aclass).displayStyle == .class // will be true
Of course, it would be best handled using a switch-case statement in practice.
This approach has been working for me in Swift 3:
class TestClass { }
struct TestStruct { }
var mystery:Any
mystery = TestClass()
// Is mystery instance a class type?
print(type(of:mystery) is AnyClass ? "YES" : "NO") // prints: "YES"
mystery = TestStruct()
// Is mystery instance a class type?
print(type(of:mystery) is AnyClass ? "YES" : "NO") // prints: "NO"
Note that this approach tells you only if an instance is a class type or not. The fact that it's not a class doesn't necessarily mean it's a struct (could be an enum, closure, tuple, etc.) But for most purposes and contexts this is enough to know if you are dealing with a reference type or a value type, which is usually what is needed.
There is is operator.
if someInstance is SomeType {
// do something
}
And there is as? operator.
if let someInstance = someInstance as? SomeType {
// now someInstance is SomeType
}
In swift4, checking class or struct
class TClass {}
struct TStruct {}
func who(_ any: Any) -> String {
if Mirror(reflecting: any).displayStyle == .class {
return "Class"
} else {
return "Struct"
}
}
print(who("Hello")) // Struct
print(who(TClass())) // Class
print(who(TStruct())) // Struct
print(who(1)) // Struct
You can do this by below given way and for more information on this please follow this link.
class Shape {
class func className() -> String {
return "Shape"
}
}
class Square: Shape {
override class func className() -> String {
return "Square"
}
}
class Circle: Shape {
override class func className() -> String {
return "Circle"
}
}
func getShape() -> Shape {
return Square() // hardcoded for example
}
let newShape: Shape = getShape()
newShape is Square // true
newShape is Circle // false
newShape.dynamicType.className() // "Square"
newShape.dynamicType.className() == Square.className()
A simple example for this:
var name = "Big Hero"
if name.isKindOfClass(NSString){
println("this is this class")
}else{
println("this is not this class")
}
Related
It seems a class, which uses generics in swift, sometimes cannot properly determine object type.
Consider the following model structure:
class BaseModel: NSObject, Equatable, Printable {
var id: String = ""
override var description: String {
return "id: \(id)"
}
override func isEqual(object: AnyObject?) -> Bool {
if let object = object as? BaseModel {
return object.id == id
}
else {
return super.isEqual(object)
}
}
}
class Image: BaseModel {
var image: UIImage!
}
I also have parsers, which should parse/serialize objects:
class AbstractParser<T: BaseModel where T: Equatable>: NSObject {
func convertFromParseObject(object: NSObject) -> T {
var entity = T()
......
return updateEntityWithParseObject(object, entity: entity)
}
func updateEntityWithParseObject(object: NSObject, entity: T) -> T {
fatalError("This method must be overridden")
}
}
class ImageParser<T: Image>: AbstractParser<Image> {
override func updateEntityWithParseObject(object: NSObject, entity: Image) -> Image {
println("\(entity)")
println("\(entity.id)")
// The line below outputs BaseModel, shouldn't it be Image instead?
println("\(NSStringFromClass(entity.classForCoder))")
// EXC_BAD_ACCESS here:
println("\(entity.image)")
return entity
}
}
The app crashes when I try to access entity.image.
For some reasons Swift thinks that entity object is BaseModel, not Image.
Playground file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6agzpK_lR6JQUlhMFoxaGw1akU/view?usp=sharing
I have the following class:
class BaseCache<T: Equatable>: NSObject {
var allEntities = [T]()
// MARK: - Append
func appendEntities(newEntities: [T]) {
....
}
}
Now I want to subclass it, but I get annoying error, that my type "does not conform to protocol 'Equatable'":
It seems generics in Swift are real pain-in-the-ass.
Your class definition of TrackingCache is wrong. It repeats the generic parameter:
class TrackingCache<AftershipTracking>: BaseCache<AftershipTracking> { }
It should be left out:
class TrackingCache: BaseCache<AftershipTracking> { }
This triggers the underlying swift error Classes derived from generic classes must also be generic. You can work around this issue by specifying a type parameter that is required to be or inherit from AftershipTracking:
class TrackingCache<T: AftershipTracking>: BaseCache<AftershipTracking> { }
Full example:
class BaseCache<T: Equatable>: NSObject {
var items: [T] = []
func appendItems( items: [T]) {
self.items += items
didAppendItems()
}
func didAppendItems() {} // for overriding
}
class AftershipTracking: NSObject {
var identifier: Int
init( identifier: Int) {
self.identifier = identifier
super.init()
}
}
extension AftershipTracking: Equatable { }
func ==( lhs: AftershipTracking, rhs: AftershipTracking) -> Bool {
return lhs.identifier == rhs.identifier
}
class TrackingCache<T: AftershipTracking>: BaseCache<AftershipTracking> {
override func didAppendItems() {
// do something
}
}
let a = TrackingCache<AftershipTracking>()
let b = TrackingCache<AftershipTracking>()
a.appendItems( [AftershipTracking( identifier: 1)])
b.appendItems( [AftershipTracking( identifier: 1)])
let result = a.items == b.items // true
this should work: < swift 4 >
class TrackingCache<T: AftershipTracking>: BaseCache<T>
Another example:
protocol P {
}
class C: P {
}
class CS: C {
}
class L<T:P> {
let c: T
init(_ c: T) {
self.c = c
}
}
class LS<T:CS>:L<T> {
}
let i = LS(CS())
i.c
c is CS now.
I want to check if I already have a delegate in my removeDelegate method before removing.
How do I do that?
Here's what I've got so far:
protocol LocationManagerDelegate {
func locationManagerDidUpdateLocation(
oldLocation: CLLocationCoordinate2D,
currentLocation: CLLocationCoordinate2D
)
}
class LocationManager: NSObject {
private var _delegates = [LocationManagerDelegate]()
func removeDelegate(delegate:LocationManagerDelegate) {
if contains(_delegates, delegate) {
// Remove delegate
}
}
}
However, this gives me the following error on the 'if contains' line:
cannot invoke 'contains' with an argument list of type '(#lvalue Array< LocationManagerDelegate >!, LocationManagerDelegate)'
Update for Swift 4.2:
Assuming that the delegates are actually instances of a class, you could require that in the protocol by "inheriting" from "class":
protocol LocationManagerDelegate: class {
// ...
}
and then use the firstIndex(where:) method, using the "identity operator
===:
class LocationManager: NSObject {
private var _delegates = [LocationManagerDelegate]()
func removeDelegate(delegate:LocationManagerDelegate) {
if let index = _delegates.firstIndex(where: { $0 === delegate }) {
_delegates.remove(at: index)
}
}
}
Old answer (Swift 1):
There are two slightly different contains() functions:
func contains<S : SequenceType where S.Generator.Element : Equatable>(seq: S, x: S.Generator.Element) -> Bool
func contains<S : SequenceType, L : BooleanType>(seq: S, predicate: (S.Generator.Element) -> L) -> Bool
You are using the first one, which requires that the sequence elements conform to
the Equatable protocol, i.e. they can be compared with ==.
Assuming that the delegates are actually instances of a class, you could require
that in the protocol by "inheriting" from "class":
protocol LocationManagerDelegate : class {
// ...
}
and then use the second, predicate-based version of contains() with the
identity operator ===:
func removeDelegate(delegate:LocationManagerDelegate) {
if contains(_delegates, { $0 === delegate }) {
// Remove delegate
}
}
To remove the object from the array you'll have to get its index, so you might use
the findIdenticalObject() function from https://stackoverflow.com/a/25543084/1187415:
func findIdenticalObject<T : AnyObject>(array: [T], value: T) -> Int? {
for (index, elem) in enumerate(array) {
if elem === value {
return index
}
}
return nil
}
and then find and remove from the array with
func removeDelegate(delegate:LocationManagerDelegate) {
if let index = findIdenticalObject(_delegates, delegate) {
_delegates.removeAtIndex(index)
}
}
The arguments to contains must implement the Equatable protocol since it is defined as:
public func contains<T:Equatable>(left:[T], right:T) -> Bool
Since there's no way to indicate that LocationManagerDelegate implements Equatable, I don't think you can use it. The obvious attempt would be:
protocol LocationManagerDelegate : Equatable {
...
}
But that will fail when you try to declare the array because Equatable uses Self.
The best option I can come up with is:
func removeDelegate(delegate:LocationManagerDelegate) {
_delegates = filter(_delegates) { return $0 !== delegate }
}
protocol LocationManagerDelegate {
// ...
var index_delegate:Int?{get set}
}
class LocationManager {
private var delegates:[LocationManagerDelegate] = []
func add(delegate: LocationManagerDelegate?){
if let d = delegate {
self.delegates.append(d)
let index = self.delegates.count - 1
self.delegates[index].index_delegate = index
}
}
func remove(delegate: LocationManagerDelegate) {
delegates = delegates.filter({ return $0.index_delegate != delegate.index_delegate })
}
}
I defined two types as follow: I want to define a function 'matches' that compares two KeyTypePairs and returns true or false depends on matching on key and type.
protocol KeyTypePair: Hashable {
typealias val
var key: String { get }
var type: Any.Type { get }
}
public struct KeyTypePairOf<T>: KeyTypePair {
typealias val = T
let _key: String
let _type: Any.Type
public var key: String {
get {
return _key
}
}
public var type: Any.Type {
get {
return _type
}
}
public var hashValue: Int {
get {
return _key.hashValue
}
}
public init(key: String) {
self._key = key
self._type = T.self
}
init<T: KeyTypePair>(property: T) {
self._key = pair.key
self._type = pair.type
}
func matches<T: KeyTypePair>(pair:T) -> Bool {
let x = self._type == pair.type // invalid, how do I check equal types?
return self._key == pair.key && x
}
}
How do I compare the 'types' of the struct? Been a headache. Should I use AnyObject instead?
I tested this in a Swift 4 playground
struct Foo {}
struct Bar {}
let fooType: Any.Type = Foo.self
let barType: Any.Type = Bar.self
fooType == Foo.self // true
fooType is Foo.Type // true
fooType == barType // false
The tool you want is object_getClassName (which returns a String). Right now, you can't directly compare types. This feels like just a missing compiler feature rather than anything deep about swift. You'd think you could compare x.dynamicType == y.dynamicType, but that doesn't currently work. See also What is the pattern for entities and Equatable?
This is a relatively common design pattern:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/17015041/743957
It allows you to return a subclass from your init calls.
I'm trying to figure out the best method of achieving the same thing using Swift.
I do know that it is very likely that there is a better method of achieving the same thing with Swift. However, my class is going to be initialized by an existing Obj-C library which I don't have control over. So it does need to work this way and be callable from Obj-C.
Any pointers would be very much appreciated.
I don't believe that this pattern can be directly supported in Swift, because initialisers do not return a value as they do in Objective C - so you do not get an opportunity to return an alternate object instance.
You can use a type method as an object factory - a fairly contrived example is -
class Vehicle
{
var wheels: Int? {
get {
return nil
}
}
class func vehicleFactory(wheels:Int) -> Vehicle
{
var retVal:Vehicle
if (wheels == 4) {
retVal=Car()
}
else if (wheels == 18) {
retVal=Truck()
}
else {
retVal=Vehicle()
}
return retVal
}
}
class Car:Vehicle
{
override var wheels: Int {
get {
return 4
}
}
}
class Truck:Vehicle
{
override var wheels: Int {
get {
return 18
}
}
}
main.swift
let c=Vehicle.vehicleFactory(4) // c is a Car
println(c.wheels) // outputs 4
let t=Vehicle.vehicleFactory(18) // t is a truck
println(t.wheels) // outputs 18
The "swifty" way of creating class clusters would actually be to expose a protocol instead of a base class.
Apparently the compiler forbids static functions on protocols or protocol extensions.
Until e.g. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/247 (factory initializers) is accepted and implemented, the only way I could find to do this is the following:
import Foundation
protocol Building {
func numberOfFloors() -> Int
}
func createBuilding(numberOfFloors numFloors: Int) -> Building? {
switch numFloors {
case 1...4:
return SmallBuilding(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
case 5...20:
return BigBuilding(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
case 21...200:
return SkyScraper(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
default:
return nil
}
}
private class BaseBuilding: Building {
let numFloors: Int
init(numberOfFloors:Int) {
self.numFloors = numberOfFloors
}
func numberOfFloors() -> Int {
return self.numFloors
}
}
private class SmallBuilding: BaseBuilding {
}
private class BigBuilding: BaseBuilding {
}
private class SkyScraper: BaseBuilding {
}
.
// this sadly does not work as static functions are not allowed on protocols.
//let skyscraper = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 200)
//let bigBuilding = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 15)
//let smallBuilding = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 2)
// Workaround:
let skyscraper = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 200)
let bigBuilding = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 15)
let smallBuilding = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 2)
Since init() doesn't return values like -init does in Objective C, using a factory method seems like the easiest option.
One trick is to mark your initializers as private, like this:
class Person : CustomStringConvertible {
static func person(age: UInt) -> Person {
if age < 18 {
return ChildPerson(age)
}
else {
return AdultPerson(age)
}
}
let age: UInt
var description: String { return "" }
private init(_ age: UInt) {
self.age = age
}
}
extension Person {
class ChildPerson : Person {
let toyCount: UInt
private override init(_ age: UInt) {
self.toyCount = 5
super.init(age)
}
override var description: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType): I'm \(age). I have \(toyCount) toys!"
}
}
class AdultPerson : Person {
let beerCount: UInt
private override init(_ age: UInt) {
self.beerCount = 99
super.init(age)
}
override var description: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType): I'm \(age). I have \(beerCount) beers!"
}
}
}
This results in the following behavior:
Person.person(10) // "ChildPerson: I'm 10. I have 5 toys!"
Person.person(35) // "AdultPerson: I'm 35. I have 99 beers!"
Person(35) // 'Person' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
Person.ChildPerson(35) // 'Person.ChildPerson' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
It's not quite as nice as Objective C, since private means all the subclasses need to be implemented in the same source file, and there's that the minor syntax difference Person.person(x) (or Person.create(x) or whatever) instead of simply Person(x), but practically speaking, it works the same.
To be able to instantiate literally as Person(x), you could turn Person into a proxy class which contains a private instance of the actual base class and forwards everything to it. Without message forwarding, this works for simple interfaces with few properties/methods but it gets unwieldy for anything more complex :P
I think actually the Cluster pattern can be implemented in Swift using runtime functions. The main point is to replace the class of your new object with a subclass when initializing. The code below works fine though I think more attention should be paid to subclass' initialization.
class MyClass
{
var name: String?
convenience init(type: Int)
{
self.init()
var subclass: AnyClass?
if type == 1
{
subclass = MySubclass1.self
}
else if type == 2
{
subclass = MySubclass2.self
}
object_setClass(self, subclass)
self.customInit()
}
func customInit()
{
// to be overridden
}
}
class MySubclass1 : MyClass
{
override func customInit()
{
self.name = "instance of MySubclass1"
}
}
class MySubclass2 : MyClass
{
override func customInit()
{
self.name = "instance of MySubclass2"
}
}
let myObject1 = MyClass(type: 1)
let myObject2 = MyClass(type: 2)
println(myObject1.name)
println(myObject2.name)
protocol SomeProtocol {
init(someData: Int)
func doSomething()
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
var instance: SomeProtocol
init(someData: Int) {
if someData == 0 {
instance = SomeOtherClass()
} else {
instance = SomethingElseClass()
}
}
func doSomething() {
instance.doSomething()
}
}
class SomeOtherClass: SomeProtocol {
func doSomething() {
print("something")
}
}
class SomethingElseClass: SomeProtocol {
func doSomething() {
print("something else")
}
}
Basically you create a protocol that your class cluster inherits from. You then wrap around an instance variable of the same type and choose which implementation to use.
For example, if you were writing an array class that switched between a LinkedList or a raw array then SomeOtherClass and SomethingElseClass might be named LinkedListImplementation or PlainArrayImplementation and you could decide which one to instantiate or switch to based on whatever is more efficient.
There is a way to achieve this. Whether it is good or bad practice is for another discussion.
I have personally used it to allow for extension of a component in plugins without exposing the rest of the code to knowledge of the extensions. This follows the aims of the Factory and AbstractFactory patterns in decoupling code from the details of instantiation and concrete implementation classes.
In the example case the switching is done on a typed constant to which you would add in extensions. This kinda contradicts the above aims a little technically - although not in terms of foreknowledge. But in your case the switch might be anything - the number of wheels for example.
I don’t remember if this approach was available in 2014 - but it is now.
import Foundation
struct InterfaceType {
let impl: Interface.Type
}
class Interface {
let someAttribute: String
convenience init(_ attribute: String, type: InterfaceType = .concrete) {
self.init(impl: type.impl, attribute: attribute)
}
// need to disambiguate here so you aren't calling the above in a loop
init(attribute: String) {
someAttribute = attribute
}
func someMethod() {}
}
protocol _Factory {}
extension Interface: _Factory {}
fileprivate extension _Factory {
// Protocol extension initializer - has the ability to assign to self, unlike class initializers.
init(impl: Interface.Type, attribute: String) {
self = impl.init(attribute: attribute) as! Self;
}
}
Then in a concrete implementation file ...
import Foundation
class Concrete: Interface {
override func someMethod() {
// concrete version of some method
}
}
extension InterfaceType {
static let concrete = InterfaceType(impl: Concrete.self)
}
For this example Concrete is the "factory" supplied default implementation.
I have used this, for example, to abstract the details of how modal dialogs were presented in an app where initially UIAlertController was being used and migrated to a custom presentation. None of the call sites needed changing.
Here is a simplified version that does not determine the implementation class at runtime. You can paste the following into a Playground to verify its operation ...
import Foundation
class Interface {
required init() {}
convenience init(_ discriminator: Int) {
let impl: Interface.Type
switch discriminator {
case 3:
impl = Concrete3.self
case 2:
impl = Concrete2.self
default:
impl = Concrete1.self
}
self.init(impl: impl)
}
func someMethod() {
print(NSStringFromClass(Self.self))
}
}
protocol _Factory {}
extension Interface: _Factory {}
fileprivate extension _Factory {
// Protocol extension initializer - has the ability to assign to self, unlike class initializers.
init(impl: Interface.Type) {
self = impl.init() as! Self;
}
}
class Concrete1: Interface {}
class Concrete2: Interface {}
class Concrete3: Interface {
override func someMethod() {
print("I do what I want")
}
}
Interface(2).someMethod()
Interface(1).someMethod()
Interface(3).someMethod()
Interface(0).someMethod()
Note that Interface must actually be a class - you can't collapse this down to a protocol avoiding the abstract class even if it had no need for member storage. This is because you cant invoke init on a protocol metatype and static member functions cannot be invoked on protocol metatypes. This is too bad as that solution would look a lot cleaner.
We can take advantage of a compiler quirk - self is allowed to be assigned in protocol extensions - https://forums.swift.org/t/assigning-to-self-in-protocol-extensions/4942.
Thus, we can have in place something like this:
/// The sole purpose of this protocol is to allow reassigning `self`
fileprivate protocol ClusterClassProtocol { }
extension ClusterClassProtocol {
init(reassigningSelfTo other: Self) {
self = other
}
}
/// This is the base class, the one that gets circulated in the public space
class ClusterClass: ClusterClassProtocol {
convenience init(_ intVal: Int) {
self.init(reassigningSelfTo: IntChild(intVal))
}
convenience init(_ stringVal: String) {
self.init(reassigningSelfTo: StringChild(stringVal))
}
}
/// Some private subclass part of the same cluster
fileprivate class IntChild: ClusterClass {
init(_ intVal: Int) { }
}
/// Another private subclass, part of the same cluster
fileprivate class StringChild: ClusterClass {
init(_ stringVal: String) { }
}
Now, let's give this a try:
print(ClusterClass(10)) // IntChild
print(ClusterClass("abc")) // StringChild
This works the same as in Objective-C, where some classes (e.g. NSString, NSArray, NSDictionary) return different subclasses based on the values given at initialization time.