swift - Generic Types Collection

Question

Building on previous question which got resolved, but it led to another problem. If protocol/class types are stored in a collection, retrieving and instantiating them back throws an error. a hypothetical example is below. The paradigm is based on "Program to Interface not an implementation" What does it mean to "program to an interface"?

instantiate from protocol.Type reference dynamically at runtime

public protocol ISpeakable {
    init()
    func speak()
}

class Cat : ISpeakable {
    required init() {}
    func speak() {
        println("Meow");
    }
}

class Dog : ISpeakable {
    required init() {}
    func speak() {
        println("Woof");
    }
}

//Test class is not aware of the specific implementations of ISpeakable at compile time
class Test {
    func instantiateAndCallSpeak<T: ISpeakable>(Animal:T.Type) {
        let animal = Animal()
        animal.speak()
    }
}

// Users of the Test class are aware of the specific implementations at compile/runtime

//works
let t = Test()
t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(Cat.self)
t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(Dog.self)

//doesn't work if types are retrieved from a collection
//Uncomment to show Error - IAnimal.Type is not convertible to T.Type
var animals: [ISpeakable.Type] = [Cat.self, Dog.self, Cat.self]

for animal in animals {
    //t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(animal) //throws error
}

for (index:Int, value:ISpeakable.Type) in enumerate(animals) {
    //t.instantiateAndCallSpeak(value) //throws error
}

Edit - My current workaround to iterate through collection but of course it's limiting as the api has to know all sorts of implementations. The other limitation is subclasses of these types (for instance PersianCat, GermanShepherd) will not have their overridden functions called or I go to Objective-C for rescue (NSClassFromString etc.) or wait for SWIFT to support this feature.

Note (background): these types are pushed into array by users of the utility and for loop is executed on notification

var animals: [ISpeakable.Type] = [Cat.self, Dog.self, Cat.self]

for Animal in animals {
    if Animal is Cat.Type {
        if let AnimalClass = Animal as? Cat.Type {
            var instance = AnimalClass()
            instance.speak()
        }
    } else if Animal is Dog.Type {
        if let AnimalClass = Animal as? Dog.Type {
            var instance = AnimalClass()
            instance.speak()
        }
    }
}

Answer 1

Basically the answer is: correct, you can't do that. Swift needs to determine the concrete types of type parameters at compile time, not at runtime. This comes up in a lot of little corner cases. For instance, you can't construct a generic closure and store it in a variable without type-specifying it.

This can be a little clearer if we boil it down to a minimal test case

protocol Creatable { init() }

struct Object : Creatable { init() {} }

func instantiate<T: Creatable>(Thing: T.Type) -> T {
    return Thing()
}

// works. object is of type "Object"
let object = instantiate(Object.self)   // (1)

// 'Creatable.Type' is not convertible to 'T.Type'
let type: Creatable.Type = Object.self
let thing = instantiate(type)  // (2)

At line 1, the compiler has a question: what type should T be in this instance of instantiate? And that's easy, it should be Object. That's a concrete type, so everything is fine.

At line 2, there's no concrete type that Swift can make T. All it has is Creatable, which is an abstract type (we know by code inspection the actual value of type, but Swift doesn't consider the value, just the type). It's ok to take and return protocols, but it's not ok to make them into type parameters. It's just not legal Swift today.

This is hinted at in the Swift Programming Language: Generic Parameters and Arguments:

When you declare a generic type, function, or initializer, you specify the type parameters that the generic type, function, or initializer can work with. These type parameters act as placeholders that are replaced by actual concrete type arguments when an instance of a generic type is created or a generic function or initializer is called. (emphasis mine)

You'll need to do whatever you're trying to do another way in Swift.

As a fun bonus, try explicitly asking for the impossible:

let thing = instantiate(Creatable.self)

And... swift crashes.

---

From your further comments, I think closures do exactly what you're looking for. You've made your protocol require trivial construction (init()), but that's an unnecessary restriction. You just need the caller to tell the function how to construct the object. That's easy with a closure, and there is no need for type parameterization at all this way. This isn't a work-around; I believe this is the better way to implement that pattern you're describing. Consider the following (some minor changes to make the example more Swift-like):

// Removed init(). There's no need for it to be trivially creatable.
// Cocoa protocols that indicate a method generally end in "ing" 
// (NSCopying, NSCoding, NSLocking). They do not include "I"
public protocol Speaking {
    func speak()
}

// Converted these to structs since that's all that's required for
// this example, but it works as well for classes.
struct Cat : Speaking {
    func speak() {
        println("Meow");
    }
}

struct Dog : Speaking {
    func speak() {
        println("Woof");
    }
}

// Demonstrating a more complex object that is easy with closures,
// but hard with your original protocol
struct Person: Speaking {
    let name: String
    func speak() {
        println("My name is (name)")
    }
}

// Removed Test class. There was no need for it in the example,
// but it works fine if you add it.
// You pass a closure that returns a Speaking. We don't care *how* it does
// that. It doesn't have to be by construction. It could return an existing one.
func instantiateAndCallSpeak(builder: () -> Speaking) {
    let animal = builder()
    animal.speak()
}

// Can call with an immediate form.
// Note that Cat and Dog are not created here. They are not created until builder()
// is called above. @autoclosure would avoid the braces, but I typically avoid it.
instantiateAndCallSpeak { Cat() }
instantiateAndCallSpeak { Dog() }

// Can put them in an array, though we do have to specify the type here. You could
// create a "typealias SpeakingBuilder = () -> Speaking" if that came up a lot.
// Again note that no Speaking objects are created here. These are closures that
// will generate objects when applied.
// Notice how easy it is to pass parameters here? These don't all have to have the
// same initializers.
let animalBuilders: [() -> Speaking] = [{ Cat() } , { Dog() }, { Person(name: "Rob") }]

for animal in animalBuilders {
    instantiateAndCallSpeak(animal)
}