I have been trying to implement an iOS app in Swift from Big Nerd Ranch's most recent iOS book.
In the guide, there is the following method, where privateItems is an NSMutableArray
- (void)removeItem:(BNRItem *)item
{
[self.privateItems removeObjectIdenticalTo:item]
}
So in my Swift implementation, which has privateItems as a Swift Array, I would like to be able to do this:
func removeItem(item: Item) {
_privateItems.removeObjectIndenticalTo(item)
}
However, the Swift Array does not support that method. It has the removeAtIndex method. I know that I could simply achieve the same effect with the following code:
func removeItem(item: Item) {
for (index, element) in enumerate(_privateItems) {
if element === item {
_privateItems.removeAtIndex(index)
}
}
}
However, I would like to create a generic extension for the Swift Array so that I don't have to do this every time. Not a huge deal, but I think it would at least be good for the sake of learning.
I have looked into a couple of other SO posts (How can I extend typed Arrays in Swift? and How can we create a generic Array Extension that sums Number types in Swift?), but have not been able to accomplish what I want. Here is my attempt:
protocol Identifiable {
func ===(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Self
}
extension Array {
func removeObjectIndenticalTo<T: Identifiable>(object: T) {
for (index, element) in enumerate(self) {
if object === element {
removeAtIndex(index)
}
}
}
}
I think I am pretty close. This gives the error "Could not find an overload for '===' that accepts the supplied arguments". What should I change to accomplish that?
Also for reference, there was another SO post that extended the Swift Array with some of the NSMutableArray methods in the following fashion:
extension Array {
func contains(#object:AnyObject) -> Bool {
return self.bridgeToObjectiveC().containsObject(object)
}
func indexOf(#object:AnyObject) -> Int {
return self.bridgeToObjectiveC().indexOfObject(object)
}
}
protocol Identifiable {
#infix func ===(a: Self, b: Self) -> Bool
}
struct Item : Identifiable {
var n : Int
}
#infix func ===(a: Item, b: Item) -> Bool {
return a.n == b.n
}
var _privateItems = [Item(n:1),Item(n:2),Item(n:2),Item(n:1),Item(n:2)]
func removeItem(item: Item) {
var tbr : Int[] = []
for (index, element) in enumerate(_privateItems) {
if element === item {
tbr += index
}
}
for i in reverse(sort(tbr)) {
_privateItems.removeAtIndex(i)
}
}
removeItem(Item(n:2))
println(_privateItems.count)
removeItem(Item(n:1))
println(_privateItems.count)
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 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'm trying to add an extension method in Array like so:
extension Array {
func contains(obj: T) -> Bool {
let filtered = self.filter {$0 == obj}
return filtered.count > 0
}
}
But self.filter {$0 == obj} don't work. Compiler error:
could not find an overload for '==' that accepts the supplied arguments
you don't actually need to write an extension, you can use the global func contains from the Swift library:
contains([1,2,3], 1)
Swift 1.x
As I mentioned in the comments, there is a contains function. But to answer the question of how to write an extension and what the compiler error means:
The elements in the array can't necessarily be compared with ==. You need to make sure the parameter is Equatable and you need to make sure the array element is of the same type.
extension Array {
func contains<T : Equatable>(obj: T) -> Bool {
let filtered = self.filter {$0 as? T == obj}
return filtered.count > 0
}
}
Swift 2/Xcode 7 (Beta)
Swift 2 includes SequenceType.contains, which is exactly what you were trying to create.
This is made possible by a Swift syntax that allows restricting methods to certain (e.g. Equatable) type arguments. It looks like this:
extension SequenceType where Generator.Element: Equatable {
func contains(element: Self.Generator.Element) -> Bool {
...
}
}
I found that the built-in contains doesn't work with reference types. I needed this and solved it with the code below. I'm pasting it here because somebody else might be confused about contains() like I was.
extension Array {
func containsReference(obj: AnyObject) -> Bool {
for ownedItem in self {
if let ownedObject: AnyObject = ownedItem as? AnyObject {
if (ownedObject === obj) {
return true
}
}
}
return false
}
}
This works with Swift 2.1 for reference types pretty good.
extension SequenceType where Generator.Element: AnyObject {
func contains(obj: Self.Generator.Element?) -> Bool {
if obj != nil {
for item in self {
if item === obj {
return true
}
}
}
return false
}
}
For value types you can add this:
extension SequenceType where Generator.Element: Equatable {
func contains(val: Self.Generator.Element?) -> Bool {
if val != nil {
for item in self {
if item == val {
return true
}
}
}
return false
}
}
Not perfect, but this version built on nschum's answer supports optional arguments (though not arrays with optional types) as well:
extension Array {
private func typeIsOptional() -> Bool {
return reflect(self[0]).disposition == .Optional
}
func contains<U : Equatable>(obj: U) -> Bool {
if isEmpty {
return false
}
if (typeIsOptional()) {
NSException(name:"Not supported", reason: "Optional Array types not supported", userInfo: nil).raise()
}
// cast type of array to type of argument to make it equatable
for item in self.map({ $0 as? U }) {
if item == obj {
return true
}
}
return false
}
// without this version, contains("foo" as String?) won't compile
func contains<U : Equatable>(obj: U?) -> Bool {
if isEmpty {
return false
}
if (typeIsOptional()) {
NSException(name:"Not supported", reason: "Optional Array types not supported", userInfo: nil).raise()
}
return obj != nil && contains(obj!)
}
}
If you have an array of optionals, you can get a copy of it with non-optionals (nil arguments removed) with this global function thanks to jtbandes:
func unwrapOptionals<T>(a: [T?]) -> [T] {
return a.filter { $0 != nil }.map { $0! }
}
Usage:
1> func unwrapOptionals<T>(a: [T?]) -> [T] {
2. return a.filter { $0 != nil }.map { $0! }
3. }
4>
5> let foo = ["foo" as String?]
foo: [String?] = 1 value {
[0] = "foo"
}
6> let bar = unwrapOptionals(foo)
bar: [String] = 1 value {
[0] = "foo"
}
For good measure, add one that just returns the array if its type is not optional. This way you avoid runtime errors if you call unwrapOptionals() on a non-optional array:
func unwrapOptionals<T>(a: [T]) -> [T] {
return a
}
Note you might think you could just call unwrapOptionals inside func contains<U : Equatable>(obj: U?). However, that doesn't work, because the Element type in the Array extension is just a type--it doesn't "know" it's an optional type. So if you call unwrapOptionals, the second version will be invoked, and you'll just get the array full of optionals back.