Tag: Swift

If you are anything like me, the concept of Swift Optionals can be a little confusing. At first blush, it seems fine, but then the way that you have to work with them can leave you scratching your head.

The idea is simple. Swift Optionals are essentially nullable/nillable types from other languages. Obviously, reference types can always be null or nil (depending on the language), but value types cannot. In most (if not all) languages that I am familiar with, you cannot have a null integer or a null boolean. You used to have to be left with creating some logic or understanding that if an Id column was 0 or -1, that meant that it had never been set. Or, you had to never fully rely on a boolean’s false value. It could mean no one had ever set some conditional, or it could mean they had “chosen” and they had chosen “no” or “off”.

In C#, they implemented nullable types to solve this problem. I have an example below of using nullable types. You’ll note that you can actually declare them two ways. Like many things in modern languages, there is the “defined” way and the “shorthand” way. There are a few things I want you to note. First, before you use it, you should check and see if it has a value by consulting its “HasValue” property. But, how could you do that if it is null? It isn’t actually null. The nullable type is actually a container. You are asking the container if anything is inside. The other thing to note is that when I want to use it, .Net infers the call to id.Value for instance. I left it as implicit for id and explicit for otherId so you can see the difference.

Nullable<Int32> id = null;
int? otherId = 7; // int? is just "syntatic sugar" for Nullable<Int32>

if (id.HasValue)
{
	Console.WriteLine("The id's value is {0}", id);
}
else
{
	Console.WriteLine("Id has a null value");
}

// We could also be more concise, but maybe less readable
Console.WriteLine(otherId.HasValue ? string.Format("Other Id's value is {0}", otherId.Value) : "Other Id has a null value");

If I had called .Value on id while it was set to null, I would have gotten an error that said “Nullable object must have a value”. That’s why you must check.

So, how does this relate to Swift? The syntax is actually very similar to C#’s. I use the question mark to denote that I’ve declared an optional variable. However, if I try to use it like C# and just print it out, I get something that can be confusing. Take a look at this code:

var id: Int? = 7

print(id)

Here is what is output, “Optional(7)”. Unlike C#, it didn’t just auto-unwrap and show 7. It is showing you visibly that that 7 is “wrapped inside an Optional”. That is because – like C# – the ? is “syntactic sugar”. What you are really declaring is this:

var id: Optional<Int> = Optional<Int>(7)

print(id)

Now it is really no wonder why we see “Optional(7)” as the output. Swift is literally just giving us back what is there. What if you wanted to unwrap it, then? To unwrap it, you use the ! symbol, like this:

var id: Int? = 7

print(id!)

That will actually output “7” to your console. But, what will this code do?

var id: Int? = nil

print(id!)

If I try to force unwrap a nil value, I get this error, “fatal error: unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an Optional value”. Bad news. One way that you often see this dealt with is like this:

var id: Int? = nil

if let unwrappedId = id {
    print("Id unwrapped is \(unwrappedId)")
}
else {
    print("That was nil")
}

In our case, this code prints “That was nil”. If you change the first line to var id: Int? = 7, it will now output “Id unwrapped is 7”. But… why? This syntax makes use of a few things. First, nil evaluates as false in Swift. Secondly, the “if let” is special syntax to Swift. The variable is only unwrapped in this way in an “if let” scenario. And “if let” only works if you have an Optional being assigned.

For instance, I can’t do either of these:

if let seven = 7 {
    print ("Worked")
}

var id: Int = 8

if let eight = id {
    print("Bingo")
}

The compiler errors on both items say, “initializer for conditional binding must have Optional type, not ‘Int'”.

So, “if let” is what you have to work with if you want to check variables and do something different in execution if they are not there. However, you have other options. What if you are handed an Optional, but you just want to work with a “sensible default”? You can stick with “if let” if that makes sense to you. That would look like this:

var incomingVariable: Int? = nil

var myInternalVariable:Int

if let unwrappedIncomingVariable = incomingVariable {
    myInternalVariable = unwrappedIncomingVariable
}
else {
    myInternalVariable = 0
}

print(myInternalVariable)

Another option is to skip the “else” entirely and just preset your variable to what the default should be. If the Optional variable has a value, it will just be overwritten. The previous code and this code both print out “0” to the console.

var incomingVariable: Int? = nil

var myInternalVariable:Int = 0

if let unwrappedIncomingVariable = incomingVariable {
    myInternalVariable = unwrappedIncomingVariable
}

print(myInternalVariable)

What if you would like to be a little more concise? You do have the option of using the Swift coalesce operator, ??. That would reduce the previous example to something like this:

var incomingVariable: Int? = nil

var myInternalVariable:Int = incomingVariable ?? 0

print(myInternalVariable)

That’s all there is to Optionals at their core. In another post, I’ll revisit Optionals and see how you can use them in iOS applications to deal with controls and casts. If you have any questions, let me know.

I’m doing this code in the latest version of Xcode that is available as of this writing, Xcode 7 Beta 6. It does not work with Xcode 6 at all, because some of the features are only part of Swift 2.
Extension methods are a language feature that allows you to add behavior to a class (“extend” that class’ functionality, if you will).

In .Net, extension methods are merely syntactic sugar. I previously talked about them here and here. I go into more detail in the links, but basically extension methods are implemented as new methods that take the “extended object” as a parameter. You might declare one something like this:

public static class StringExtensions
{
    public static bool StartsWithACapitalLetter(this string input)
    {
        return !string.IsNullOrEmpty(input) && Char.IsUpper(input[0]);
    }
}

Then, when I call “Pete”.StartsWithACapitalLetter() it returns true and “pete”.StartsWithACapitalLetter() returns false.

So, that’s .Net. What about Swift? In Swift, similar functionality can be achieved this way.

extension String {
    var StartsWithACapitalLetter:Bool {
        if (self.isEmpty) { return false }
        let firstCharacter = String(self.characters.first!)
        return firstCharacter == firstCharacter.uppercaseString
    }
}

As it stands, if I call “Pete”.StartsWithACapitalLetter I get true and “pete”.StartsWithACapitalLetter gives me false. Let’s break it down a little more.

The first thing you do is just use the Swift keyword extension in front of the name of the class you are extending. After that, you literally just “add code” to the class. In this case, I added a property (not a method) called StartsWithACapitalLetter that returns a boolean. Notice that within that method, I can use self just as if I had written this code inside of the original class itself.

That’s really all that there is to it.

In the Swift Programming Language – like all programming languages – we are given a lot of ways to control the flow of the program. Back when Swift was first introduced, I wrote a post to talk about the ways that Swift offered to control program flow.

One of the ways that I covered in that post was the while keyword. Using a while statement will cause the program to evaluate a condition first before it would ever execute the block. Take this code for example:

var counter:Int = 0

while counter < 10 {
    print("counter is at \(counter)")
    counter++
}

This results in the output of:

counter is at 0
counter is at 1
counter is at 2
counter is at 3
counter is at 4
counter is at 5
counter is at 6
counter is at 7
counter is at 8
counter is at 9

However, if you ran the following code:

var counter:Int = 0

while counter > 0 {
    print("counter is at \(counter)")
    counter++
}

There is no output. Since counter is 0 and the while block only executes for positive values, nothing happens.

Let’s see how repeat is different. We’ll try the first example again.

var counter:Int = 0

repeat {
    print("counter is at \(counter)")
    counter++
} while counter < 10

This results in the same output of

counter is at 0
counter is at 1
counter is at 2
counter is at 3
counter is at 4
counter is at 5
counter is at 6
counter is at 7
counter is at 8
counter is at 9

But, the second example of

var counter:Int = 0

repeat {
    print("counter is at \(counter)")
    counter++
} while counter > 0

Results in the code running for ever and ever and ever. It only asked if the variable was greater than 0 after the first pass. Since by the time the code had exited the repeat block the value of counter was 1 (and therefore positive), we just kept going (I stopped it when the last few entries looked like this):

counter is at 10789
counter is at 10790
counter is at 10791
counter is at 10792
counter is at 10793
counter is at 10794
counter is at 10795
counter is at 10796
counter is at 10797
counter is at 10798
counter is at 10799

You might be saying to yourself, but Pete.. this sounds exactly like a do-while loop vs a while loop. Well, you’d be 100% correct. Even according to the Swift documentation, “The repeat-while loop in Swift is analogous to a do-while loop in other languages”. C’est la vie!

At WWDC 2015, Apple announced some substantial updates to the Swift Programming Language for version 2.0. Since its announcement, Swift has been undergoing a lot of updates. In fact, version 1.2 of the language had been released in April 2015 and by June we had the first preview of 2.0.

I decided to blog about some of the changes to the language that really caught my attention. The one that I like the most is the “defer” keyword. In .Net (and other languages), we have this concept of try/finally. Sometimes you can include a catch in there, but it isn’t required. The idea is that after the code executes in the try portion, the code in finally is guaranteed to execute. That’s the perfect place to make sure that you’ve disposed of objects or otherwise cleaned up after yourself. Pretty much every tutorial that I’ve ever seen in .Net has something like this:

try 
{ 
  connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString); 
  connection.Open(); 
  // Do Some Stuff
} 
finally 
{ 
  connection.Dispose(); 
} 

Sharp .Netters might point out that coding a “using” statement accomplishes essentially the same thing with anything that implements IDisposable, but I’m just trying to demonstrate a point 😉

There are a few problems with this try/finally style of coding, however. First, what tends to happen is that developers wrap large blocks of code in try blocks. The problem with that is that you don’t know what actually exists by the time you get to the finally. Maybe you’ve returned early from the method, or maybe an exception was thrown. Now, you’ve got to litter your entire finally block with “if this exists, set it to null” or “if this is open, close it” kind of stuff. That’s where “defer” comes in. Let’s take a look at some code that I ran in an Xcode 7 Beta 2 Playground:

class Foo {
    var Bar : String = ""
    var Baz : Int = 0
}

func showOffDefer() {
    var originalFoo: Foo?
    
    defer {
        print ("Bar was \(originalFoo!.Bar)")
        originalFoo = nil
        print ("Now it is \(originalFoo?.Bar)")
    }
    
    originalFoo = Foo()
    originalFoo!.Bar = "Lorem Ipsum"
    originalFoo!.Baz = 7

    print("We are doing other work")
}

showOffDefer()

Remember, the defer block isn’t called until the function is exited. So, what is written to the console is:

We are doing other work
Bar was Lorem Ipsum
Now it is nil

Do you see the power in that? Now, after I declare an object, I can write a deferred block and it is guaranteed to execute when the function exits. That can be any number of early return statements, that can be because of an exception, or it can be because the function just ran out of code and returned automatically (like mine here). These defer blocks are also managed like a stack, so the most recent defer statements are run first. Let’s see that in action:

class Foo {
    var Bar : String = ""
    var Baz : Int = 0
}

func showOffDefer() {
    var originalFoo: Foo?
    
    defer {
        print ("Original Foo's Bar was \(originalFoo!.Bar)")
        originalFoo = nil
        print ("Now it is \(originalFoo?.Bar)")
    }
    
    originalFoo = Foo()
    originalFoo!.Bar = "Lorem Ipsum"
    originalFoo!.Baz = 7

    print("We are doing other work")
    
    var newFoo: Foo?
    
    defer {
        print ("New Foo's Bar was \(newFoo!.Bar)")
        newFoo = nil
        print("Now it is \(newFoo?.Bar)")
    }
    
    newFoo = Foo()
    newFoo!.Bar = "Monkeys"
    newFoo!.Baz = 42
    
    print("We are doing even more work")
}

showOffDefer()

This gives us

We are doing other work
We are doing even more work
New Foo's Bar was Monkeys
Now it is nil
Original Foo's Bar was Lorem Ipsum
Now it is nil

Hopefully, that example helps make some sense of it. So what did we get? First of all, we got our two print statements that we were doing other work and then even more work showing that the entirety of the function executes before any defer blocks are called. But then it executes newFoo’s defer block first, finishing with originalFoo’s block last.

That seems pretty awesome to me. I realize that Swift isn’t starting anything terribly new here. The Go Programming Language already had this exact concept. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea.

Swift was created from the very beginning to be a “safe” language and I think defer blocks accomplish this in a few ways. First of all, it ensures that code gets executed. Secondly, it makes sure that only appropriate code is executed (it won’t try to cleanup for objects not yet created). Thirdly, it keeps the cleanup right near the declaration, so readability and discoverability is improved. Why is that safe? If code is easy to read and understand, and the places for modification are well-known and well-understood, then the code is going to be higher quality.

I’m excited for what Swift 2.0 is bringing to the table.

Today, I was listening to Episode 61 of the iOhYes Podcast (Podcast Since Removed), titled “Not Enough Words”.

This was the second show in a row talking about the Swift Programming Language. As part of the discussion, they talked about classes and structs in the language. During the discussion, it came up that in Swift, a Dictionary is a value type. That means if you assign a dictionary variable to another variable, it makes a copy. If you do that with a normal object, both variables just hold a pointer to the same spot in memory. If you change one, you change them both.

Well, the question came up that was basically, “If you have a dictionary full of objects and you assign it to another variable, will the objects be copied or referenced?”. The hosts could guess, but didn’t really know. I thought that it would be fun to try to find out. To do so, I wrote the following code in a Swift Playground in Xcode.

Here are the respective outputs:

Are originalFoo and referencedFoo the same object? true
Are originalFoo and anotherFoo the same object? false
Are referencedFoo and anotherFoo the same object? false

Are the values for first keys in the two dictionaries the same object? true
Are the values for second keys in the two dictionaries the same object? true
Is the value of the first key in the original dictionary the same object as the value of the second key in the copied dictionary? false

So, you can see that a dictionary struct is created, but it is just populated with references to the exact same Swift objects that were in the original dictionary. Playgrounds are pretty useful for just trying out code and testing these kinds of things. This is what I always used LINQPad for in .Net and I’m glad that this is available to us in Xcode.