Thanks Joanna Carter, sorry forgot to mention it uses generics, so would
contain associatedtype if protocol is used.
Is the below mentioned approach the usual way to hide implementation details or
is there a better approach ?
With this approach, I had to pass functions of C1 as closures into Helper
functions.
struct Helper {} //This is could be a protocol / struct / class
class C1 {
private let helper = Helper()
}
Please let me know if the question is off-topic and needs to be posted in a
separate thread / elsewhere.
Thanks and regards,
Muthu
> On 24 Jul 2017, at 5:43 PM, Joanna Carter <joa...@carterconsulting.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Background:
>> Just a little background into what I was trying to achieve (I could be
>> wrong):
>>
>> - I have a set of classes C1, C2, C3 which has a lot of common code
>>
>> - I would like to build something that can be reused without exposing the
>> implementation details. (I can subclass but would expose the underlying
>> functions, same applies to protocol as well)
>>
>> - I thought I would build helper class / struct which would contain the
>> common code. I can make the helper a private property so that the functions
>> wouldn’t be exposed to the instances of C1, C2, C3. In order to achieve that
>> I had to pass some functions from C1 into the Helper struct.
>>
>> Question 2:
>> - Is this problem (hiding implementation details) normally tackled using
>> Helper class (or struct) or is there a more better approach ?
>
> Usually, as long as the protocol doesn't reference self or have associated
> types, I would use a protocol as the "abstract" type and then you could
> implement it in either a class or struct.
>
> Joanna
>
> --
> Joanna Carter
> Carter Consulting
>
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
