No it does not have to be a generic enum at all, as long you do not want extending the types from a diffrent module. Simply add a new enum case for each type you need, like `case string(String)`. You may also want to ask the wrapped type for it's hashValue so that it will hash correctly.
-- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 11. Juli 2017 um 15:15:11, Glen Huang (hey...@gmail.com(mailto:hey...@gmail.com)) schrieb: > > NM, I think you meant this? > > enum Either<T1, T2> { > case Left(T1) > case Right(T2) > } > > > On 11 Jul 2017, at 9:06 PM, Glen Huang via swift-users > > <swift-users@swift.org(mailto:swift-users@swift.org)> wrote: > > This sounds pretty interesting. > > > > But I can’t totally wrap my head around it. How do I "wrap types into enum > > cases”? Could you provide a sample code? Thanks. > > > > > On 11 Jul 2017, at 8:50 PM, Adrian Zubarev > > > <adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com(mailto:adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com)> > > > wrote: > > > If the solution you seek is not designed so that the module user can > > > extend the set of types then you could wrap your types into enum cases > > > and use the enum for your set. ;) When Swift will support anonymous enum > > > cases, this will be an elegant solution to these type of things. > > > > > > -- > > > Adrian Zubarev > > > Sent with Airmail > > > > > > Am 11. Juli 2017 um 14:46:12, Glen Huang via swift-users > > > (swift-users@swift.org(mailto:swift-users@swift.org)) schrieb: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing AnyHashable to my attention. > > > > > > > > It works, but the types are now erased. I want to have a union of the > > > > two sets because I want to loop over it to treat each contained item as > > > > Named, so I can process them as though they are of the same type. Is > > > > this type of use case really should be addressed using super class? > > > > > > > > > On 11 Jul 2017, at 7:38 PM, Howard Lovatt > > > > > <howard.lov...@gmail.com(mailto:howard.lov...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > > > You can have a set of AnyHashable: > > > > > > > > > > > var item = Set<AnyHashable>() > > > > > > item.insert(AnyHashable(Foo())) > > > > > > item.insert(AnyHashable(Bar())) > > > > > > > > > > Depends what you will do with the set if this is viable or not. You > > > > > can also use classes and ObjectID. > > > > > > > > > > You might want this though: > > > > > > > > > > > var item = [AnyHashable: Any] > > > > > extension Dictionary where Key == AnyHashable, Value: Hashable { > > > > > func insert(_ value: Value) { > > > > > self[AnyHashable(value)] == value > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > item.insert(Foo()) > > > > > > item.insert(Bar()) > > > > > > > > > > So you get at the stored value. > > > > > > > > > > -- Howard. > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Jul 2017, at 8:09 pm, Glen Huang via swift-users > > > > > <swift-users@swift.org(mailto:swift-users@swift.org)> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to store some heterogeneous items all conform to a protocol > > > > > > inside a set, is it something possible to do in swift? > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried this example: > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > protocol Named: Hashable { > > > > > > var name: String { get } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > extension Named { > > > > > > var hashValue: Int { > > > > > > return name.hashValue > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > static func ==(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool { > > > > > > return lhs.name == rhs.name > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > struct Foo: Named { > > > > > > var name = "foo" > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > struct Bar: Named { > > > > > > var name = "bar" > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > var item = Set<Named>() > > > > > > item.insert(Foo()) > > > > > > item.insert(Bar()) > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > But it failed at `Set<Named>()` where it complained "Using 'Named' > > > > > > as a concrete type conforming to protocol 'Hashable' is not > > > > > > supported”. > > > > > > > > > > > > After watching the WWDC session "Protocol-Oriented Programming in > > > > > > Swift” by Dave Abrahams, I try to use protocols whenever possible. > > > > > > But I can’t seem to overcome this barrier. Set.Element must confirm > > > > > > to Hashable, which inherits from Equatable, which has self > > > > > > requirement, which ultimately means that Set.Element all must be of > > > > > > the same type. So it seems it’s impossible to have heterogeneous > > > > > > items using protocol. Is that the case? > > > > > > > > > > > > My use case is this: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an object that can contain two sets of other objects: > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > class Parent { > > > > > > var foos: Set<Foo> > > > > > > var bars: Set<Bar> > > > > > > } > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to define a computed property “all” that is the union of the > > > > > > two sets. Foo and Bar conform to the same protocol. I wonder what > > > > > > return type I should use for the union? Do I have to go back to OOP > > > > > > and define a super class for Foo and Bar? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > swift-users mailing list > > > > > > swift-users@swift.org(mailto:swift-users@swift.org) > > > > > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > swift-users mailing list > > > > swift-users@swift.org(mailto:swift-users@swift.org) > > > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > > swift-users mailing list > > swift-users@swift.org(mailto:swift-users@swift.org) > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users >
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
