I am still not sure about the rules of struct copy or reference.
I want to mutate a struct object while iterating on it from an array:
For instance in this case I would like to change the background color
but the compiler is yelling at me
struct Options {
var backgroundColor = UIColor.blackColor()
}
var arrayOfMyStruct = [MyStruct]
...
for obj in arrayOfMyStruct {
obj.backgroundColor = UIColor.redColor() // ! get an error
}
struct are value types, thus in the for loop you are dealing with a copy.
Just as a test you might try this:
Swift 3:
struct Options {
var backgroundColor = UIColor.black
}
var arrayOfMyStruct = [Options]()
for (index, _) in arrayOfMyStruct.enumerated() {
arrayOfMyStruct[index].backgroundColor = UIColor.red
}
Swift 2:
struct Options {
var backgroundColor = UIColor.blackColor()
}
var arrayOfMyStruct = [Options]()
for (index, _) in enumerate(arrayOfMyStruct) {
arrayOfMyStruct[index].backgroundColor = UIColor.redColor()
}
Here you just enumerate the index, and access directly the value stored in the array.
Hope this helps.
You can use use Array.indices:
for index in arrayOfMyStruct.indices {
arrayOfMyStruct[index].backgroundColor = UIColor.red
}
You are working with struct objects which are copied to local variable when using for in loop. Also array is a struct object, so if you want to mutate all members of the array, you have to create modified copy of original array filled by modified copies of original objects.
arrayOfMyStruct = arrayOfMyStruct.map { obj in
var obj = obj
obj.backgroundColor = .red
return obj
}
It can be simplified by adding this Array extension.
Swift 4
extension Array {
mutating func mutateEach(by transform: (inout Element) throws -> Void) rethrows {
self = try map { el in
var el = el
try transform(&el)
return el
}
}
}
Usage
arrayOfMyStruct.mutateEach { obj in
obj.backgroundColor = .red
}
For Swift 3, use the enumerated() method.
For example:
for (index, _) in arrayOfMyStruct.enumerated() {
arrayOfMyStruct[index].backgroundColor = UIColor.redColor()
}
The tuple also includes a copy of the object, so you could use for (index, object) instead to get to the object directly, but since it's a copy you would not be able to mutate the array in this way, and should use the index to do so. To directly quote the documentation:
If you need the integer index of each item as well as its value, use
the enumerated() method to iterate over the array instead. For each
item in the array, the enumerated() method returns a tuple composed of
an integer and the item.
Another way not to write subscript expression every time.
struct Options {
var backgroundColor = UIColor.black
}
var arrayOfMyStruct = [Options(), Options(), Options()]
for index in arrayOfMyStruct.indices {
var option: Options {
get { arrayOfMyStruct[index] }
set { arrayOfMyStruct[index] = newValue }
}
option.backgroundColor = .red
}
I saw this method in some code and it seems to be working
for (var mutableStruct) in arrayOfMyStruct {
mutableStruct.backgroundColor = UIColor.redColor()
}
Related
I am having two arrays coming from web service, I need to find out whether the Array2 has the same objects as Array1.
So, For this I am using below code:
var arr1 = [CustomObject]()
var arr2 = [CustomObject]()
var arr3 = [CustomObject]()
var arr4 = [CustomObject]()
self.arr3 = self.arr1 + self.arr2 //concatenate two arrays
self.arr4 = Array(Set(arr3)) // find out uniq values
// below is the extension
extension Array where Element : Hashable {
var unique: [Element] {
var uniqueValues: [Element] = []
forEach { item in
if !uniqueValues.contains(item) {
uniqueValues += [item]
}
}
return uniqueValues
}
}
But it is showing error on above line "Array(Set(arr3))"
Error Is :- To add value to Set
Try this :
var arr1 = ["A","B","C"]
var arr2 = ["A","B","C"]
if Set(arr1).symmetricDifference(arr2).isEmpty {
print("The Arrays Match")
}
Overview:
In order for the set to store custom class / struct, the custom class / struct needs to to conform to Hashable protocol and indirectly Equatable protocol.
Given below is an example using a struct, you can use a class as well.
Code:
struct CustomObject : Hashable{
var something : Int //It is just an example, this could be any type, but some how you should find a way to compute the hash value.
//MARK: Hashable
var hashValue: Int {
return something
}
}
//MARK: CustomObject - Equatable
func ==(lhs: CustomObject, rhs: CustomObject) -> Bool {
return lhs.something == rhs.something
}
I have a Protocol called Composite.
This protocol has an array composites: [Composite]
I also have a generic subclass GenericSubclass<T>: Composite
When iterating over the array the best I can come up with looks like this:
for item in composites {
if let item = item as? GenericSubclass<A> {
let sc = SomeOtherClass<A>
} else if let item = item as? GenericSubclass<B> {
let sc = SomeOtherClass<B>
} //and so on...
}
Is there any way to get a hold of GenericSubclass without specifying the Generic? In my use case there is absolutely no need for me to know about the T. I just have to instantiate another class with the same generic type.
Any help is much appreciated.
It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish with the "generic" (pun intended) class names you've chosen. I don't think there's a way to directly accomplish what you want. I.e. you can't just leave it as a generic T because the compiler needs some way to determine what T will be in use at runtime.
However, one way to solve the issue is to hoist the API into the Composite protocol:
protocol Composite {
var composites: [Composite] { get set }
func otherClass() -> OtherProtocol
}
protocol OtherProtocol { }
class GenericSubclass<T>: Composite {
var composites: [Composite] = []
func otherClass() -> OtherProtocol {
return SomeOtherClass<T>()
}
}
class SomeOtherClass<T>: OtherProtocol {}
So now when you implement your loop, you can rely on the fact that since each element is a Composite, you know it must provide an instance of OtherProtocol via the otherClass() method:
var c = GenericSubclass<Int>()
c.composites = [GenericSubclass<Double>(), GenericSubclass<Int>(), GenericSubclass<Character>()]
for item in c.composites {
let sc = item.otherClass()
print(sc)
}
Alternatively, if only GenericSubclass should vend an OtherProtocol, you can make the return type Optional and define an extension for all the other implementations of Composite:
protocol Composite {
var composites: [Composite] { get set }
func optionalClass() -> OtherProtocol?
}
extension Composite {
func optionalClass() -> OtherProtocol? {
return nil
}
}
I did some experiment on this in the playground and i came up with this
protocol Composite {
var composites: [Composite] { get set }
}
class GenericSubclass<T>: Composite {
var composites: [Composite] = []
}
let subclass = GenericSubclass<String>()
for item in subclass.composites {
let className = String(describing: type(of: item))
let aClassType = NSClassFromString(className) as! NSObject.Type
let instance = aClassType.init() // we create a new object
print(instance) //Output: GenericSubclass<String>
}
Hope this will help someone.
I think it's not possible to do that in array.
While you creat some different GenericSubclass<T> then put it in array , you will lose <T> no matter the composites is [Composite] or [Any].
// this line won't compile
let array = [GenericSubclass<Int>(),GenericSubclass<Double>()]
//error: heterogenous collection literal could only be inferred to '[Any]'; add explicit type annotation if this is intentional
You want donging something like this func below, the param should be GenericSubclass<T> to compile success
func genericFunc<T>(param:GenericSubclass<T>) {
let sc = SomeOtherClass<T>()
print(sc)
}
Anyway you can implement it with member var for the instance like the code below:
class Subclass {
var type : Any
init(type : Any) {
self.type = type
}
}
class SomeOtherClass : CustomDebugStringConvertible{
var type : Any
init(type : Any) {
self.type = type
}
var debugDescription: String{
return String(describing: type.self)
}
}
let array : [Subclass] = [Subclass(type : Int.self),Subclass(type : Double.self),Subclass(type : String.self)]
let scArray = array.flatMap {SomeOtherClass(type:$0.type.self)}
print(scArray) // prints [Int, Double, String]
You need to add one method to protocol which creates new item of Type supported this protocol. So now you can use enums, structs and classes without any knowledge of creating object of specific type.
You can play in playground with the following code:
import UIKit
//This is your protocol
protocol MyAwesomeProtocol {
//this methods leaves implementaion detailes
//to concrete type
func createNewObject()->MyAwesomeProtocol
}
//Just create empty string
extension String: MyAwesomeProtocol {
func createNewObject() -> MyAwesomeProtocol {
return String()
}
}
//create Enum with default value
extension UIControlState: MyAwesomeProtocol {
func createNewObject() -> MyAwesomeProtocol {
return UIControlState.normal
}
}
//create viewController of any type
extension UIViewController: MyAwesomeProtocol {
func createNewObject() -> MyAwesomeProtocol {
return type(of:self).init()
}
}
//This is test function
//it creates array of newly created items and prints them out
//in terminal
func doSomeCoolStuffWith(items:[MyAwesomeProtocol]){
var newItems = [MyAwesomeProtocol]()
for anItem in items {
let newOne = anItem.createNewObject()
newItems.append(newOne)
}
print("created new ones:\n\(newItems)\nfrom old ones:\n\(items)\n")
}
doSomeCoolStuffWith(items: [UIControlState.focused,UIControlState.disabled])
doSomeCoolStuffWith(items: [UISplitViewController(),UINavigationController(),UICollectionViewController()])
doSomeCoolStuffWith(items: ["I","love","swift"])
This will produce the following result:
created new ones:
[__C.UIControlState(rawValue: 0), __C.UIControlState(rawValue: 0)]
from old ones:
[__C.UIControlState(rawValue: 8), __C.UIControlState(rawValue: 2)]
created new ones:
[<UISplitViewController: 0x7fa8ee7092d0>, <UINavigationController: 0x7fa8f0044a00>, <UICollectionViewController: 0x7fa8ee705f30>]
from old ones:
[<UISplitViewController: 0x7fa8ee7011e0>, <UINavigationController: 0x7fa8f004e600>, <UICollectionViewController: 0x7fa8ee708fb0>]
created new ones:
["", "", ""]
from old ones:
["I", "love", "swift"]
I have an array of CGPoints (spritePositions) and I would like to create SKSpriteNode's with a selected number of positions (leaving specific indexes of the out). Please see code below:
CreateSprite(missingIndexes: [int]) {
//for (index, value) in enumerate(spritePositions) filtering out/excluding missingIndexes array {
var sprite = SKSpriteNode(imageNamed: "spriteImage")
sprite.position = value
addChild(sprite)
}
}
You can use the contains function on the missingIndexes array to filter out your indices. If the index is not contained in your missingIndexes process as normal. If the index is containted in missingIndexes, do nothing.
Swift 1.2:
for (index, value) in enumerate(spritePositions) {
if !contains(missingIndexes, index) {
var sprite = SKSpriteNode(imageNamed: "spriteImage")
sprite.position = value
addChild(sprite)
}
}
Swift 2.0
for (index, value) in spritePositions.enumerate() {
if !missingIndexes.contains(index) {
var sprite = SKSpriteNode(imageNamed: "spriteImage")
sprite.position = value
addChild(sprite)
}
}
Swift 1.2:
var filteredObjects = spritePositions.filter { !contains(missingIndexes, find(spritePositions, $0)!)}
gets a list by filtering the indices
for object in filteredObjects {
print(object)
}
uses that in a loop
Not necessarily the best way to do it, just a way using filter, which will allow you to keep the filtered array if you need it later.
Yet another option would be to use a combination of the Set type and the map function. The below snippet is for Swift 1.2.
let missingIndexes: [Int] = ...
let spritePositions: [CGPoint] = ...
map(Set(0 ..< count(spritePositions)).subtract(missingIndexes), { index -> Void in
var sprite = SKSpriteNode(imageNamed: "spriteImage")
sprite.position = spritePositions[index]
addChild(sprite)
})
This is more efficient than repeatedly calling contains on the missingIndexes array.
I'm getting a: Cannot invoke 'append' with an argument list of type '([Book])' It works find if I use the += but I don't understand why append() won't work.
struct Book
{
var title:String
var pageCount:Int
}
class Library
{
var onShelfBooks:[Book] = []
var onLoanBooks:[Book] = []
var books:[Book]
{
get
{
return onShelfBooks + onLoanBooks
}
set(newBook)
{
onShelfBooks.append(newBook)
}
}
}
struct Book
{
var title:String
var pageCount:Int
}
class Library
{
var onShelfBooks:[Book] = []
var onLoanBooks:[Book] = []
var books:[Book]
{
get
{
return onShelfBooks + onLoanBooks
}
set(newBook)
{
onShelfBooks.append(newBook[0])
}
}
}
var myLibrary = Library()
var newBook = Book(title: "Swift Development with Cocoa", pageCount: 453)
myLibrary.books = [newBook]
myLibrary.books
Append only allows you to add one object at a time while += allows you to combine an array of objects with another object. When you call append on the setter you are trying to add an array of book objects, or [Book] instead of just a single book object.
If you would like to add [newBook] with append, you can use : of
1- onShelfBooks.append(contentsOf: newBook)
"contentOf" is type of Sequence.
otherwise use of:
2- onShelfBooks += newBook
I want to store structs inside an array, access and change the values of the struct in a for loop.
struct testing {
var value:Int
}
var test1 = testing(value: 6 )
test1.value = 2
// this works with no issue
var test2 = testing(value: 12 )
var testings = [ test1, test2 ]
for test in testings{
test.value = 3
// here I get the error:"Can not assign to 'value' in 'test'"
}
If I change the struct to class it works. Can anyone tell me how I can change the value of the struct.
Besides what said by #MikeS, remember that structs are value types. So in the for loop:
for test in testings {
a copy of an array element is assigned to the test variable. Any change you make on it is restricted to the test variable, without doing any actual change to the array elements. It works for classes because they are reference types, hence the reference and not the value is copied to the test variable.
The proper way to do that is by using a for by index:
for index in 0..<testings.count {
testings[index].value = 15
}
in this case you are accessing (and modifying) the actual struct element and not a copy of it.
Well I am going to update my answer for swift 3 compatibility.
When you are programming many you need to change some values of objects that are inside a collection. In this example we have an array of struct and given a condition we need to change the value of a specific object. This is a very common thing in any development day.
Instead of using an index to determine which object has to be modified I prefer to use an if condition, which IMHO is more common.
import Foundation
struct MyStruct: CustomDebugStringConvertible {
var myValue:Int
var debugDescription: String {
return "struct is \(myValue)"
}
}
let struct1 = MyStruct(myValue: 1)
let struct2 = MyStruct(myValue: 2)
let structArray = [struct1, struct2]
let newStructArray = structArray.map({ (myStruct) -> MyStruct in
// You can check anything like:
if myStruct.myValue == 1 {
var modified = myStruct
modified.myValue = 400
return modified
} else {
return myStruct
}
})
debugPrint(newStructArray)
Notice all the lets, this way of development is safer.
The classes are reference types, it's not needed to make a copy in order to change a value, like it happens with structs. Using the same example with classes:
class MyClass: CustomDebugStringConvertible {
var myValue:Int
init(myValue: Int){
self.myValue = myValue
}
var debugDescription: String {
return "class is \(myValue)"
}
}
let class1 = MyClass(myValue: 1)
let class2 = MyClass(myValue: 2)
let classArray = [class1, class2]
let newClassArray = classArray.map({ (myClass) -> MyClass in
// You can check anything like:
if myClass.myValue == 1 {
myClass.myValue = 400
}
return myClass
})
debugPrint(newClassArray)
To simplify working with value types in arrays you could use following extension (Swift 3):
extension Array {
mutating func modifyForEach(_ body: (_ index: Index, _ element: inout Element) -> ()) {
for index in indices {
modifyElement(atIndex: index) { body(index, &$0) }
}
}
mutating func modifyElement(atIndex index: Index, _ modifyElement: (_ element: inout Element) -> ()) {
var element = self[index]
modifyElement(&element)
self[index] = element
}
}
Example usage:
testings.modifyElement(atIndex: 0) { $0.value = 99 }
testings.modifyForEach { $1.value *= 2 }
testings.modifyForEach { $1.value = $0 }
How to change Array of Structs
for every element:
itemsArray.indices.forEach { itemsArray[$0].someValue = newValue }
for specific element:
itemsArray.indices.filter { itemsArray[$0].propertyToCompare == true }
.forEach { itemsArray[$0].someValue = newValue }
You have enough of good answers. I'll just tackle the question from a more generic angle.
As another example to better understand value types and what it means they get copied:
struct Item {
var value:Int
}
func change (item: Item, with value: Int){
item.value = value // cannot assign to property: 'item' is a 'let' constant
}
That is because item is copied, when it comes in, it is immutable — as a convenience.
Had you made Item a class type then you were able to change its value.
var item2 = item1 // mutable COPY created
item2.value = 10
print(item2.value) // 10
print(item1.value) // 5
This is very tricky answer. I think, You should not do like this:
struct testing {
var value:Int
}
var test1 = testing(value: 6)
var test2 = testing(value: 12)
var ary = [UnsafeMutablePointer<testing>].convertFromArrayLiteral(&test1, &test2)
for p in ary {
p.memory.value = 3
}
if test1.value == test2.value {
println("value: \(test1.value)")
}
For Xcode 6.1, array initialization will be
var ary = [UnsafeMutablePointer<testing>](arrayLiteral: &test1, &test2)
It is possible to use the map function to get this effect - essentially creating a new array
itemsArray = itemsArray.map {
var card = $0
card.isDefault = aCard.token == token
return card
}
I ended up recreating a new array of struct see the example below.
func updateDefaultCreditCard(token: String) {
var updatedArray: [CreditCard] = []
for aCard in self.creditcards {
var card = aCard
card.isDefault = aCard.token == token
updatedArray.append(card)
}
self.creditcards = updatedArray
}
I tried Antonio's answer which seemed quite logical but to my surprise it does not work. Exploring this further I tried the following:
struct testing {
var value:Int
}
var test1 = testing(value: 6 )
var test2 = testing(value: 12 )
var testings = [ test1, test2 ]
var test1b = testings[0]
test1b.value = 13
// I would assume this is same as test1, but it is not test1.value is still 6
// even trying
testings[0].value = 23
// still the value of test1 did not change.
// so I think the only way is to change the whole of test1
test1 = test1b