Learning Rust I happen to need to compare variants inside nested enums. Considering following enums how do I compare actual variants of instantinated BuffTurget?
enum Attribute {
Strength,
Agility,
Intellect,
}
enum Parameter {
Health,
Mana,
}
enum BuffTarget {
Attribute(Attribute),
Parameter(Parameter),
}
Searching the web led me to the `discriminant and particularly to comparison function like this:
fn variant_eq<T>(a: &T, b: &T) -> bool {
std::mem::discriminant(a) == std::mem::discriminant(b)
}
Unfortunately this function is not working in my case:
#[test]
fn variant_check_is_working() {
let str = BuffTarget::Attribute(Attribute::Strength);
let int = BuffTarget::Attribute(Attribute::Intellect);
assert_eq!(variant_eq(&str, &int), false);
}
// Output:
// thread 'tests::variant_check' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
// left: `true`,
// right: `false`', src/lib.rs:11:9
Ideally I would like my code to be something like this, using if let:
let type_1 = get_variant(BuffTarget::Attribute(Attribute::Strength));
let type_2 = get_variant(BuffTarget::Attribute(Attribute::Intellect));
if let type_1 = type_2 {
println!("Damn it!")
} else { println!("Success!!!") }
Found suitable solution in this answer. Use #[derive(PartialEq)] for the enums to compare them with ==: enum_1 == enum_2.
#[derive(PartialEq)]
enum Attribute {
Strength,
Agility,
Intellect,
}
#[derive(PartialEq)]
enum Parameter {
Health,
Mana,
}
#[derive(PartialEq)]
enum BuffTarget {
Attribute(Attribute),
Parameter(Parameter),
}
let type_1 = BuffTarget::Attribute(Attribute::Strength));
let type_2 = BuffTarget::Attribute(Attribute::Intellect));
assert_eq!((type_1 == type_2), false);
Related
Let's say I have the following enums :
enum SomeEnum {
V1(i32),
V2(f32),
V3(String),
V4(Vec<i32>),
}
#[derive(Debug)]
enum SomeEnumConversionError {
OutOfTypeRange,
StringParse,
TooManyElements,
}
And I want the following trait to work for both values and references of the first enum; So I implement it for the reference to save some time and a few lines of duplicate code (Considering I have to do almost the same for all other variants and the real enum I'm working with has about 30 variants) :
impl TryFrom<&SomeEnum> for i32 {
type Error = SomeEnumConversionError;
fn try_from(value: &SomeEnum) -> Result<Self, Self::Error> {
match value {
SomeEnum::V1(v) => Ok(*v),
SomeEnum::V2(v) => {
let i = *v as i32;
if (i as f32) == *v {
Ok(i)
} else {
Err(SomeEnumConversionError::OutOfTypeRange)
}
}
SomeEnum::V3(v) => v
.parse::<i32>()
.map_err(|_| SomeEnumConversionError::StringParse),
SomeEnum::V4(v) if v.len() == 1 => Ok(v[0]),
SomeEnum::V4(v) => Err(SomeEnumConversionError::TooManyElements),
}
}
}
impl TryFrom<SomeEnum> for i32 {
type Error = SomeEnumConversionError;
fn try_from(value: SomeEnum) -> Result<Self, Self::Error> {
(&value).try_into()
}
}
Now, if I have the following code as an example usage :
fn some_func() {
let a = SomeEnum::V4(vec![4i32]);
let b: Result<i32, _> = a.try_into();
println!("{}", b.unwrap());
}
The question is, how is this (performance-wise, considering the conversion might be called in a loop) compared to when I implement the trait for both value and reference type (rather than just calling it by reference from value implementation) ?
Does the compiler do some optimization magic here that will eventually make it behave as if the variable a has been actually moved to the function implementation calls ?
Or do I need to also implement the whole conversion function for the value type to ensure this ?
If there are better alternatives to the whole plan, I'm all ears.
I have an implementation in Rust as follows. In the main function, I am reading a value in SalaryRange enum and this will display High("So High").
// This can be a complex type, just using string for the question
type SRange = String;
type SalEnu = SalaryRange<SRange>;
struct User<SRange> {
username: String,
email: String,
sign_in_count: u64,
active: bool,
income: Income<SRange>,
}
struct Income<SRange> {
salary_range: SalaryRange<SRange>
}
#[derive(Debug)]
enum SalaryRange<SRange> {
Low(SRange),
Mid(SRange),
High(SRange),
}
fn main() {
let user1 = User {
email: String::from("test#email.com"),
username: String::from("test_name"),
active: true,
sign_in_count: 1,
income: Income {
salary_range: (
SalaryRange::High("So High")
)
},
};
let mut srange: SalaryRange<&str> = user1.income.salary_range;
println!("{:?}", srange);
}
Link for this example can be found here.
Just wanted to know if there is a possibility to read and print the value in that enum as println!("{:?}", srange::High);, just to print out the string value?
I only want to print the value So High.
If I use srange::High This will throw an error saying
println!("{:?}", srange::High);
| ^^^^^^ use of undeclared type or module `srange`
error: aborting due to previous error
You can implement a method on your enum to extract the value:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum SalaryRange<S> {
Low(S),
Mid(S),
High(S),
}
impl<S> SalaryRange<S> {
fn value(&self) -> &S {
match self {
SalaryRange::Low(value) => value,
SalaryRange::Mid(value) => value,
SalaryRange::High(value) => value,
}
}
}
println!("{:?}", srange.value());
You can pattern match srange with the if let syntax.
if let SalaryRange::High(s) = srange {
println!("{}", s);
}
will print "so high".
I know it's been a while since the question has been opened, but I would like to complete Peter's answer.
There is a more idiomatic way to achieve what you want. Just implement the std::fmt::Display trait to your enum as following:
pub enum SalaryRange {
LOW(String),
MID(String),
HIGH(String),
}
impl std::fmt::Display for SalaryRange {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
let content = match self {
SalaryRange::LOW(content) => content,
SalaryRange::MID(content) => content,
SalaryRange::HIGH(content) => content,
};
write!(f, "{}", content)
}
}
The std::fmt::Display trait allows you to display the content held by your enum value like this:
let salary_range = SalaryRange::HIGH("So high".to_string());
println!("{}", salary_range);
// outputs: "So high"
This should work with any type.
Playground to test it: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=eaea33a955dc9dcd81a4b96ec22d82bd
I wish that enums in Rust can be used like Haskell's productive type. I want to
access a field's value directly
assign a field's value directly or make a clone with the changing value.
Directly means that not using too long pattern matching code, but just could access like let a_size = a.size.
In Haskell:
data TypeAB = A {size::Int, name::String} | B {size::Int, switch::Bool} deriving Show
main = do
let a = A 1 "abc"
let b = B 1 True
print (size a) -- could access a field's value directly
print (name a) -- could access a field's value directly
print (switch b) -- could access a field's value directly
let aa = a{size=2} -- could make a clone directly with the changing value
print aa
I tried two styles of Rust enum definition like
Style A:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum EntryType {
A(TypeA),
B(TypeB),
}
#[derive(Debug)]
struct TypeA {
size: u32,
name: String,
}
#[derive(Debug)]
struct TypeB {
size: u32,
switch: bool,
}
fn main() {
let mut ta = TypeA {
size: 3,
name: "TAB".to_string(),
};
println!("{:?}", &ta);
ta.size = 2;
ta.name = "TCD".to_string();
println!("{:?}", &ta);
let mut ea = EntryType::A(TypeA {
size: 1,
name: "abc".to_string(),
});
let mut eb = EntryType::B(TypeB {
size: 1,
switch: true,
});
let vec_ab = vec![&ea, &eb];
println!("{:?}", &ea);
println!("{:?}", &eb);
println!("{:?}", &vec_ab);
// Want to do like `ta.size = 2` for ea
// Want to do like `ta.name = "bcd".to_string()` for ea
// Want to do like `tb.switch = false` for eb
// ????
println!("{:?}", &ea);
println!("{:?}", &eb);
println!("{:?}", &vec_ab);
}
Style B:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum TypeCD {
TypeC { size: u32, name: String },
TypeD { size: u32, switch: bool },
}
fn main() {
// NOTE: Rust requires representative struct name before each constructor
// TODO: Check constructor name can be duplicated
let mut c = TypeCD::TypeC {
size: 1,
name: "abc".to_string(),
};
let mut d = TypeCD::TypeD {
size: 1,
switch: true,
};
let vec_cd = vec![&c, &d];
println!("{:?}", &c);
println!("{:?}", &d);
println!("{:?}", &vec_cd);
// Can't access a field's value like
// let c_size = c.size
let c_size = c.size; // [ERROR]: No field `size` on `TypeCD`
let c_name = c.name; // [ERROR]: No field `name` on `TypeCD`
let d_switch = d.switch; // [ERROR]: No field `switch` on `TypeCD`
// Can't change a field's value like
// c.size = 2;
// c.name = "cde".to_string();
// d.switch = false;
println!("{:?}", &c);
println!("{:?}", &d);
println!("{:?}", &vec_cd);
}
I couldn't access/assign values directly in any style. Do I have to implement functions or a trait just to access a field's value? Is there some way of deriving things to help this situation?
What about style C:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Color {
Green { name: String },
Blue { switch: bool },
}
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Something {
size: u32,
color: Color,
}
fn main() {
let c = Something {
size: 1,
color: Color::Green {
name: "green".to_string(),
},
};
let d = Something {
size: 2,
color: Color::Blue { switch: true },
};
let vec_cd = vec![&c, &d];
println!("{:?}", &c);
println!("{:?}", &d);
println!("{:?}", &vec_cd);
let _ = c.size;
}
If all variant have something in common, why separate them?
Of course, I need to access not common field too.
This would imply that Rust should define what to do when the actual type at runtime doesn't contain the field you required. So, I don't think Rust would add this one day.
You could do it yourself. It will require some lines of code, but that matches the behavior of your Haskell code. However, I don't think this is the best thing to do. Haskell is Haskell, I think you should code in Rust and not try to code Haskell by using Rust. That a general rule, some feature of Rust come directly from Haskell, but what you want here is very odd in my opinion for Rust code.
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Something {
A { size: u32, name: String },
B { size: u32, switch: bool },
}
impl Something {
fn size(&self) -> u32 {
match self {
Something::A { size, .. } => *size,
Something::B { size, .. } => *size,
}
}
fn name(&self) -> &String {
match self {
Something::A { name, .. } => name,
Something::B { .. } => panic!("Something::B doesn't have name field"),
}
}
fn switch(&self) -> bool {
match self {
Something::A { .. } => panic!("Something::A doesn't have switch field"),
Something::B { switch, .. } => *switch,
}
}
fn new_size(&self, size: u32) -> Something {
match self {
Something::A { name, .. } => Something::A {
size,
name: name.clone(),
},
Something::B { switch, .. } => Something::B {
size,
switch: *switch,
},
}
}
// etc...
}
fn main() {
let a = Something::A {
size: 1,
name: "Rust is not haskell".to_string(),
};
println!("{:?}", a.size());
println!("{:?}", a.name());
let b = Something::B {
size: 1,
switch: true,
};
println!("{:?}", b.switch());
let aa = a.new_size(2);
println!("{:?}", aa);
}
I think there is currently no built-in way of accessing size directly on the enum type. Until then, enum_dispatch or a macro-based solution may help you.
I would like to print data of tuple enum without named fields.
A tuple is a general way of grouping together some number of other values with a variety of types into one compound type.
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Coin {
Penny(String),
Nickel { id: String },
}
fn main() {
let penny = Coin::Penny(String::from("penny"));
let nickel: Coin = Coin::Nickel { id: String::from("nickel") };
println!("{} {:?} ", penny.0, penny);
println!("{:?}", nickel);
}
In this example, Nickel is a struct-like enum variant, whereas Penny is simply called an enum variant.
I get a compiler error:
error[E0609]: no field `0` on type `Coin`
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0609`.
You can use a match statement or alternatively an if let statement to use the variant's associated value:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Coin {
Penny(String),
Nickel { id: String },
}
fn main() {
let penny = Coin::Penny(String::from("penny"));
let nickel: Coin = Coin::Nickel {
id: String::from("nickel"),
};
if let Coin::Penny(name) = penny {
println!("{}", name);
}
if let Coin::Nickel{ id } = nickel {
println!("{}", id);
}
}
Playground link
Example using match statement:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Coin {
Penny(String),
Nickel { id: String },
}
fn main() {
let penny = Coin::Penny(String::from("penny"));
let nickel: Coin = Coin::Nickel {
id: String::from("nickel"),
};
match &penny {
Coin::Penny(id) => {
println!("{}; {:?}", id, penny);
}
_ => {}
}
match &nickel {
Coin::Nickel { id } => {
println!("{}; {:?}", id, nickel);
}
_ => {}
}
}
Playground link
How should bit fields be declared and used in Swift?
Declaring an enum like this does work, but trying to OR 2 values together fails to compile:
enum MyEnum: Int
{
case One = 0x01
case Two = 0x02
case Four = 0x04
case Eight = 0x08
}
// This works as expected
let m1: MyEnum = .One
// Compiler error: "Could not find an overload for '|' that accepts the supplied arguments"
let combined: MyEnum = MyEnum.One | MyEnum.Four
I looked at how Swift imports Foundation enum types, and it does so by defining a struct that conforms to the RawOptionSet protocol:
struct NSCalendarUnit : RawOptionSet {
init(_ value: UInt)
var value: UInt
static var CalendarUnitEra: NSCalendarUnit { get }
static var CalendarUnitYear: NSCalendarUnit { get }
// ...
}
And the RawOptionSet protocol is:
protocol RawOptionSet : LogicValue, Equatable {
class func fromMask(raw: Self.RawType) -> Self
}
However, there is no documentation on this protocol and I can't figure out how to implement it myself. Moreover, it's not clear if this is the official Swift way of implementing bit fields or if this is only how the Objective-C bridge represents them.
You can build a struct that conforms to the RawOptionSet protocol, and you'll be able to use it like the built-in enum type but with bitmask functionality as well. The answer here shows how:
Swift NS_OPTIONS-style bitmask enumerations.
Updated for Swift 2/3
Since swift 2, a new solution has been added as "raw option set" (see: Documentation), which is essentially the same as my original response, but using structs that allow arbitrary values.
This is the original question rewritten as an OptionSet:
struct MyOptions: OptionSet
{
let rawValue: UInt8
static let One = MyOptions(rawValue: 0x01)
static let Two = MyOptions(rawValue: 0x02)
static let Four = MyOptions(rawValue: 0x04)
static let Eight = MyOptions(rawValue: 0x08)
}
let m1 : MyOptions = .One
let combined : MyOptions = [MyOptions.One, MyOptions.Four]
Combining with new values can be done exactly as Set operations (thus the OptionSet part), .union, likewise:
m1.union(.Four).rawValue // Produces 5
Same as doing One | Four in its C-equivalent. As for One & Mask != 0, can be specified as a non-empty intersection
// Equivalent of A & B != 0
if !m1.intersection(combined).isEmpty
{
// m1 belongs is in combined
}
Weirdly enough, most of the C-style bitwise enums have been converted to their OptionSet equivalent on Swift 3, but Calendar.Compontents does away with a Set<Enum>:
let compontentKeys : Set<Calendar.Component> = [.day, .month, .year]
Whereas the original NSCalendarUnit was a bitwise enum. So both approaches are usable (thus the original response remains valid)
Original Response
I think the best thing to do, is to simply avoid the bitmask syntax until the Swift devs figure out a better way.
Most of the times, the problem can be solved using an enum and and a Set
enum Options
{
case A, B, C, D
}
var options = Set<Options>(arrayLiteral: .A, .D)
An and check (options & .A) could be defined as:
options.contains(.A)
Or for multiple "flags" could be:
options.isSupersetOf(Set<Options>(arrayLiteral: .A, .D))
Adding new flags (options |= .C):
options.insert(.C)
This also allows for using all the new stuff with enums: custom types, pattern matching with switch case, etc.
Of course, it doesn't have the efficiency of bitwise operations, nor it would be compatible with low level things (like sending bluetooth commands), but it's useful for UI elements that the overhead of the UI outweighs the cost of the Set operations.
They showed how to do this in one of the WWDC videos.
let combined = MyEnum.One.toRaw() | MyEnum.Four.toRaw()
Note that combined will be Int type and will actually get a compiler error if you specify let combined: MyEnum. That is because there is no enum value for 0x05 which is the result of the expression.
I think maybe some of the answers here are outdated with overcomplicated solutions? This works fine for me..
enum MyEnum: Int {
case One = 0
case Two = 1
case Three = 2
case Four = 4
case Five = 8
case Six = 16
}
let enumCombined = MyEnum.Five.rawValue | MyEnum.Six.rawValue
if enumCombined & MyEnum.Six.rawValue != 0 {
println("yay") // prints
}
if enumCombined & MyEnum.Five.rawValue != 0 {
println("yay again") // prints
}
if enumCombined & MyEnum.Two.rawValue != 0 {
println("shouldn't print") // doesn't print
}
If you don't need to interoperate with Objective-C and just want the syntax of bit masks in Swift, I've written a simple "library" called BitwiseOptions that can do this with regular Swift enumerations, e.g.:
enum Animal: BitwiseOptionsType {
case Chicken
case Cow
case Goat
static let allOptions = [.Chicken, .Cow, .Goat]
}
var animals = Animal.Chicken | Animal.Goat
animals ^= .Goat
if animals & .Chicken == .Chicken {
println("Chick-Fil-A!")
}
and so on. No actual bits are being flipped here. These are set operations on opaque values. You can find the gist here.
#Mattt's very famous "NSHipster" has an extensive detailed description of the RawOptionsSetType : http://nshipster.com/rawoptionsettype/
It includes a handy Xcode snipped:
struct <# Options #> : RawOptionSetType, BooleanType {
private var value: UInt = 0
init(_ value: UInt) { self.value = value }
var boolValue: Bool { return value != 0 }
static func fromMask(raw: UInt) -> <# Options #> { return self(raw) }
static func fromRaw(raw: UInt) -> <# Options #>? { return self(raw) }
func toRaw() -> UInt { return value }
static var allZeros: <# Options #> { return self(0) }
static func convertFromNilLiteral() -> <# Options #> { return self(0) }
static var None: <# Options #> { return self(0b0000) }
static var <# Option #>: <# Options #> { return self(0b0001) }
// ...
}
You have to use .toRaw() after each member:
let combined: Int = MyEnum.One.toRaw() | MyEnum.Four.toRaw()
will work. Because as it is you're just trying to assign "One" which is a MyEnum type, not an integer. As Apple's documentation says:
“Unlike C and Objective-C, Swift enumeration members are not assigned a default integer value when they are created. In the CompassPoints example, North, South, East and West do not implicitly equal 0, 1, 2 and 3. Instead, the different enumeration members are fully-fledged values in their own right, with an explicitly-defined type of CompassPoint.”
so you have to use raw values if you want the members to represent some other type, as described here:
Enumeration members can come prepopulated with default values (called raw values), which are all of the same type. The raw value for a particular enumeration member is always the same. Raw values can be strings, characters, or any of the integer or floating-point number types. Each raw value must be unique within its enumeration declaration. When integers are used for raw values, they auto-increment if no value is specified for some of the enumeration members. Access the raw value of an enumeration member with its toRaw method.
I use the following I need the both values I can get, rawValue for indexing arrays and value for flags.
enum MyEnum: Int {
case one
case two
case four
case eight
var value: UInt8 {
return UInt8(1 << self.rawValue)
}
}
let flags: UInt8 = MyEnum.one.value ^ MyEnum.eight.value
(flags & MyEnum.eight.value) > 0 // true
(flags & MyEnum.four.value) > 0 // false
(flags & MyEnum.two.value) > 0 // false
(flags & MyEnum.one.value) > 0 // true
MyEnum.eight.rawValue // 3
MyEnum.four.rawValue // 2
This worked for me.
1 << 0 //0000
1 << 1 //0010
1 << 2 //0100
1 << 3 //1000
enum Collision: Int {
case Enemy, Projectile, Debris, Ground
func bitmask() -> UInt32 {
return 1 << self.rawValue
}
}
I'm taking a guess that something like this is how they are modeling enum options in Foundation:
struct TestOptions: RawOptionSet {
// conform to RawOptionSet
static func fromMask(raw: UInt) -> TestOptions {
return TestOptions(raw)
}
// conform to LogicValue
func getLogicValue() -> Bool {
if contains([1, 2, 4], value) {
return true
}
return false
}
// conform to RawRepresentable
static func fromRaw(raw: UInt) -> TestOptions? {
if contains([1, 2, 4], raw) {
return TestOptions(raw)
}
return nil
}
func toRaw() -> UInt {
return value
}
// options and value
var value: UInt
init(_ value: UInt) {
self.value = value
}
static var OptionOne: TestOptions {
return TestOptions(1)
}
static var OptionTwo: TestOptions {
return TestOptions(2)
}
static var OptionThree: TestOptions {
return TestOptions(4)
}
}
let myOptions = TestOptions.OptionOne | TestOptions.OptionThree
println("myOptions: \(myOptions.toRaw())")
if (myOptions & TestOptions.OptionOne) {
println("OPTION ONE is in there")
} else {
println("nope, no ONE")
}
if (myOptions & TestOptions.OptionTwo) {
println("OPTION TWO is in there")
} else {
println("nope, no TWO")
}
if (myOptions & TestOptions.OptionThree) {
println("OPTION THREE is in there")
} else {
println("nope, no THREE")
}
let nextOptions = myOptions | TestOptions.OptionTwo
println("options: \(nextOptions.toRaw())")
if (nextOptions & TestOptions.OptionOne) {
println("OPTION ONE is in there")
} else {
println("nope, no ONE")
}
if (nextOptions & TestOptions.OptionTwo) {
println("OPTION TWO is in there")
} else {
println("nope, no TWO")
}
if (nextOptions & TestOptions.OptionThree) {
println("OPTION THREE is in there")
} else {
println("nope, no THREE")
}
...where myOptions and nextOptions are of type TestOptions - I'm not exactly sure how fromMask() and getLogicValue() are supposed to act here (I just took some best guesses), maybe somebody could pick this up and work it out?
If you want bitfield in Swift, then enum is the wrong way. Better just do like this
class MyBits {
static let One = 0x01
static let Two = 0x02
static let Four = 0x04
static let Eight = 0x08
}
let m1 = MyBits.One
let combined = MyBits.One | MyBits.Four
You don't really need the class/static wrapper, but I include it as a kind of pseudo namespace.
Do bitwise operation using raw value then create a new enum object using the result.
let mask = UIViewAutoresizing(rawValue: UIViewAutoresizing.FlexibleWidth.rawValue|UIViewAutoresizing.FlexibleHeight.rawValue)
self.view.autoresizingMask = mask
Here's something I put together to try to make a Swift enum that resembles to some extent a C# flags-style enum. But I'm just learning Swift, so this should only be considered to be "proof of concept" code.
/// This EnumBitFlags protocol can be applied to a Swift enum definition, providing a small amount
/// of compatibility with the flags-style enums available in C#.
///
/// The enum should be defined as based on UInt, and enum values should be defined that are powers
/// of two (1, 2, 4, 8, ...). The value zero, if defined, should only be used to indicate a lack of
/// data or an error situation.
///
/// Note that with C# the enum may contain a value that does not correspond to the defined enum
/// constants. This is not possible with Swift, it enforces that only valid values can be set.
public protocol EnumBitFlags : RawRepresentable, BitwiseOperations {
var rawValue : UInt { get } // This provided automatically by enum
static func createNew(_ rawValue : UInt) -> Self // Must be defined as some boiler-plate code
}
/// Extension methods for enums that implement the EnumBitFlags protocol.
public extension EnumBitFlags {
// Implement protocol BitwiseOperations. But note that some of these operators, especially ~,
// will almost certainly result in an invalid (nil) enum object, resulting in a crash.
public static func & (leftSide: Self, rightSide: Self) -> Self {
return self.createNew(leftSide.rawValue & rightSide.rawValue)
}
public static func | (leftSide: Self, rightSide: Self) -> Self {
return self.createNew(leftSide.rawValue | rightSide.rawValue)
}
public static func ^ (leftSide: Self, rightSide: Self) -> Self {
return self.createNew(leftSide.rawValue ^ rightSide.rawValue)
}
public static prefix func ~ (x: Self) -> Self {
return self.createNew(~x.rawValue)
}
public static var allZeros: Self {
get {
return self.createNew(0)
}
}
// Method hasFlag() for compatibility with C#
func hasFlag<T : EnumBitFlags>(_ flagToTest : T) -> Bool {
return (self.rawValue & flagToTest.rawValue) != 0
}
}
This shows how it can be used:
class TestEnumBitFlags {
// Flags-style enum specifying where to write the log messages
public enum LogDestination : UInt, EnumBitFlags {
case none = 0 // Error condition
case systemOutput = 0b01 // Logging messages written to system output file
case sdCard = 0b10 // Logging messages written to SD card (or similar storage)
case both = 0b11 // Both of the above options
// Implement EnumBitFlags protocol
public static func createNew(_ rawValue : UInt) -> LogDestination {
return LogDestination(rawValue: rawValue)!
}
}
private var _logDestination : LogDestination = .none
private var _anotherEnum : LogDestination = .none
func doTest() {
_logDestination = .systemOutput
assert(_logDestination.hasFlag(LogDestination.systemOutput))
assert(!_logDestination.hasFlag(LogDestination.sdCard))
_anotherEnum = _logDestination
assert(_logDestination == _anotherEnum)
_logDestination = .systemOutput | .sdCard
assert(_logDestination.hasFlag(LogDestination.systemOutput) &&
_logDestination.hasFlag(LogDestination.sdCard))
/* don't do this, it results in a crash
_logDestination = _logDestination & ~.systemOutput
assert(_logDestination == .sdCard)
*/
_logDestination = .sdCard
_logDestination |= .systemOutput
assert(_logDestination == .both)
}
}
Suggestions for improvement are welcome.
EDIT: I've given up on this technique myself, and therefore obviously can't recommend it anymore.
The big problem is that Swift demands that rawValue must match one of the defined enum values. This is OK if there are only 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 flag bits - just define all of the combination values in order to make Swift happy. But for 5 or more flag bits it becomes totally crazy.
I'll leave this posted in case someone finds it useful, or maybe as a warning of how NOT to do it.
My current solution to this situation is based on using a struct instead of enum, together with a protocol and some extension methods. This works much better. Maybe I'll post it someday when I'm more sure that that isn't also isn't going to backfire on me.
Task
Get all flags from flags_combination. Each flag and flags_combination are integers. flags_combination = flag_1 | flags_2
Details
Xcode 11.2.1 (11B500), Swift 5.1
Solution
import Foundation
protocol FlagPrototype: CaseIterable, RawRepresentable where RawValue == Int {}
extension FlagPrototype {
init?(rawValue: Int) {
for flag in Self.allCases where flag.rawValue == rawValue {
self = flag
return
}
return nil
}
static func all(from combination: Int) -> [Self] {
return Self.allCases.filter { return combination | $0.rawValue == combination }
}
}
Usage
enum Flag { case one, two, three }
extension Flag: FlagPrototype {
var rawValue: Int {
switch self {
case .one: return 0x1
case .two: return 0x2
case .three: return 0x4
}
}
}
var flags = Flag.two.rawValue | Flag.three.rawValue
let selectedFlags = Flag.all(from: flags)
print(selectedFlags)
if selectedFlags == [.two, .three] { print("two | three") }