NEW: Get your ticket for Hacking with Swift Live 2019! >>

What’s new in Swift 5.1

Paul Hudson       @twostraws

As with Swift 5.0, 5.1 has a keystone feature in the form of module stability, which allows us to use third-party libraries without worrying which version of the Swift compiler they were built with. That sounds similar to the ABI stability we got in Swift 5.0, but there’s a subtle difference: ABI stability resolves Swift differences at runtime, but module stability resolves differences at compile time.

Alongside that major milestone we’re also getting a number of important language improvements, and in this article I’ll walk through them and provide code examples so you can see them in action.

 

 

Massive improvements to synthesized memberwise initializers

SE-0242 introduces major improvements to one of Swift’s most commonly used features: memberwise initializers for structs.

In earlier versions of Swift, a memberwise initializer was automatically created to accept parameters matching the properties of a struct, like this:

struct User {
    var name: String
    var loginCount: Int = 0
}

let piper = User(name: "Piper Chapman", loginCount: 0)

In Swift 5.1 this has been enhanced so that the memberwise initializer now uses default parameter values for any properties that have them. In the User struct we’ve given loginCount a default value of 0, which means we can either specify it or leave it to the memberwise initializer:

let gloria = User(name: "Gloria Mendoza", loginCount: 0)
let suzanne = User(name: "Suzanne Warren")

This lets us avoid repeating code, which is always welcome.

Implicit returns from single-expression functions

SE-0255 has removed a small but important inconsistency in the language: single-expression functions that return a value can now remove the return keyword and Swift will understand it implicitly.

In previous versions of Swift, single-line closures that returned a value you could omit the return keyword because the only line of code that was there must be the one that returned a value. So, these two pieces of code were identical:

let doubled1 = [1, 2, 3].map { $0 * 2 }
let doubled2 = [1, 2, 3].map { return $0 * 2 }

In Swift 5.1, this behavior has now been extended to functions as well: if they contain a single expression – effectively a single piece of code that evaluates to a value – then you can leave off the return keyword, like this:

func double(_ number: Int) -> Int {
    number * 2
}

That will probably cause some people to do a double take at first, but I’m sure it will become second nature over time.

Universal Self

SE-0068 expands Swift’s use of Self so that it refers to the containing type when used inside classes, structs, and enums. This is particularly useful for dynamic types, where the exact type of something needs to be determined at runtime.

As an example, consider this code:

class NetworkManager {
    class var maximumActiveRequests: Int {
        return 4
    }

    func printDebugData() {
        print("Maximum network requests: \(NetworkManager.maximumActiveRequests).")
    }
}

That declares a static maximumActiveRequests property for a network manager, and adds a printDebugData() method to print the static property. That works fine right now, but when NetworkManager is subclassed things become more complicated:

class ThrottledNetworkManager: NetworkManager {
    override class var maximumActiveRequests: Int {
        return 1
    }
}

That subclass changes maximumActiveRequests so that it allows only one request at a time, but if we call printDebugData() it will print out the value from its parent class:

let manager = ThrottledNetworkManager()
manager.printDebugData()

That should print out 1 rather than 4, and that’s where SE-0068 comes in: we can now write Self (with a capital S) to refer to the current type. So, we can rewrite printDebugData() to this:

class ImprovedNetworkManager {
    class var maximumActiveRequests: Int {
        return 4
    }

    func printDebugData() {
        print("Maximum network requests: \(Self.maximumActiveRequests).")
    }
}

This means Self works the same way as it did for protocols in earlier Swift versions.

Opaque return types

SE-0244 introduces the concept of opaque types into Swift. An opaque type is one where we’re told about the capabilities of an object without knowing specifically what kind of object it is.

At first glance that sounds a lot like a protocol, but opaque return types take the concept of protocols significantly further because are able to work with associated types, they require the same type to be used internally each time, and they allow us to hide implementation details.

As an example, if we wanted to launch different kinds of fighters from a Rebel base we might write code like this:

protocol Fighter { }
struct XWing: Fighter { }

func launchFighter() -> Fighter {
    return XWing()
}

let red5 = launchFighter()

Whoever calls that function knows it will return some sort of Fighter but doesn’t know precisely what. As a result, we could add struct YWing: Fighter { } or other types, and have any of them be returned.

But there’s a problem: what if we wanted to check whether a specific fighter was Red 5? You might think the solution is to make Fighter conform to the Equatable protocol so we can use ==. However, as soon as you do that Swift will throw up a particularly dreaded error for the launchFighter function: “Protocol 'Fighter' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements.”

The “Self” part of that error is what is hitting us here. The Equatable protocol has to compare two instances of itself (“Self”) to see whether they are the same, but Swift has no guarantee that the two equatable things are remotely the same – we could be comparing a Fighter with an array of integers, for example.

Opaque types solve this problem because even though we just see a protocol being used, internally the Swift compiler knows exactly what that protocol actually resolves to – it knows it’s an XWing, an array of strings, or whatever.

To send back an opaque type, use the keyword some before your protocol name:

func launchOpaqueFighter() -> some Fighter {
    return XWing()
}

From the caller’s perspective that still gets back a Fighter, which might be an XWing, a YWing, or something else that conforms to the Fighter protocol. But from the compiler’s perspective it knows exactly what is being returned, so it can make sure we follow all the rules correctly.

For example, consider a function that returned some Equatable like this:

func makeInt() -> some Equatable {
    Int.random(in: 1...10)
}

When we call that, all we know is that it is some sort of Equatable value, however if call it twice then we can compare the results of those two calls because Swift knows for sure it will be the same underlying type:

let int1 = makeInt()
let int2 = makeInt()
print(int1 == int2)

The same is not true if we had a second function that returned some Equatable, like this:

func makeString() -> some Equatable {
    "Red"
}

Even though from our perspective both send us back an Equatable type, and we can compare the results of two calls to makeString() or two calls to makeInt(), Swift won’t let us compare the return value of makeString() to the return value of makeInt() because it knows comparing a string and an integer doesn’t make any sense.

An important proviso here is that functions with opaque return types must always return one specific type. If for example we tried to use Bool.random() to randomly launch an XWing or a YWing then Swift would refuse to build our code because the compiler can no longer tell what will be sent back.

You might well think “if we always need to return the same type, why not just write the function as func launchFighter() -> XWing? While that might work sometimes, it creates new problems such as:

  • We end up with types we don’t really want to expose to the world. For example, if we used someArray.lazy.drop { … } we get sent back a LazyDropWhileSequence – a dedicated and highly specific type from the Swift standard library. All we actually care about is that this thing is a sequence; we don’t need to know how Swift’s internals work.

  • We lose the ability to change our mind later. Making launchFighter() return only an XWing means we can’t switch to a different type in the future, and given how much Disney relies on Star Wars toy sales that would be a problem! By returning an opaque type we can return X-Wings today, then move to B-Wings in a year – we only ever return one in any given build of our code, but we can still have the flexibility to change our mind.

In some respects all this might sound similar to generics, which also solve the “Self or associated type requirements” problem. Generics allow us to write code like this:

protocol ImperialFighter {
    init()
}

struct TIEFighter: ImperialFighter { }
struct TIEAdvanced: ImperialFighter { }

func launchImperialFighter<T: ImperialFighter>() -> T {
    return T()
}

That defines a new protocol that requires conforming types to be initializable with no parameters, defines two structs that conform to that protocol, then creates a generic function to use it. However, the difference here is that now callers of launchImperialFighter() are the ones to choose what kind of fighter they get, like this:

let fighter1: TIEFighter = launchImperialFighter()
let fighter2: TIEAdvanced = launchImperialFighter()

If you want callers to be able to select their data type then generics work well, but if you want the function to decide the return type then they fall down;

So, opaque result types allow us to do several things:

  • Our functions decide what type of data gets returned, not the caller of those functions.
  • We don’t need to worry about Self or associated type requirements, because the compiler knows exactly what type is inside.
  • We get to change our minds in the future whenever we need to.
  • We don’t expose private internal types to the outside world.

Static and class subscripts

SE-0254 adds the ability to mark subscripts as being static, which means they apply to types rather than instances of a type.

Static properties and methods are used when one set of values is shared between all instances of that type. For example, if you had one centralized type to store your app settings, you might write code like this:

public enum OldSettings {
    private static var values = [String: String]()

    static func get(_ name: String) -> String? {
        return values[name]
    }

    static func set(_ name: String, to newValue: String?) {
        print("Adjusting \(name) to \(newValue ?? "nil")")
        values[name] = newValue
    }
}

OldSettings.set("Captain", to: "Gary")
OldSettings.set("Friend", to: "Mooncake")
print(OldSettings.get("Captain") ?? "Unknown")

Wrapping the dictionary inside a type means that we can control access more carefully, and using an enum with no cases means we can’t try to instantiate the type – we can’t make various instances of Settings.

With Swift 5.1 we can now use a static subscript instead, allowing us to rewrite our code to this:

public enum NewSettings {
    private static var values = [String: String]()

    public static subscript(_ name: String) -> String? {
        get {
            return values[name]
        }
        set {
            print("Adjusting \(name) to \(newValue ?? "nil")")
            values[name] = newValue
        }
    }
}

NewSettings["Captain"] = "Gary"
NewSettings["Friend"] = "Mooncake"
print(NewSettings["Captain"] ?? "Unknown")

Custom subscripts like this have always been possible for instances of types; this improvement makes static or class subscripts possible too.

Warnings for ambiguous none cases

Swift’s optionals are implemented as an enum of two cases: some and none. This gave rise to the possibility of confusion if we created our own enums that had a none case, then wrapped that inside an optional.

For example:

enum BorderStyle {
    case none
    case solid(thickness: Int)
}

Used as a non-optional this was always clear:

let border1: BorderStyle = .none
print(border1)

That will print “none”. But if we used an optional for that enum – if we didn’t know what border style to use – then we’d hit problems:

let border2: BorderStyle? = .none
print(border2)

That prints “nil”, because Swift assumes .none means the optional is empty, rather than an optional with the value BorderStyle.none.

In Swift 5.1 this confusion now prints a warning: “Assuming you mean 'Optional.none'; did you mean 'BorderStyle.none' instead?” This avoids the source compatibility breakage of an error, but at least informs developers that their code might not quite mean what they thought.

Matching optional enums against non-optionals

Swift has always been smart enough to handle switch/case pattern matching between optionals and non-optionals for strings and integers, but before Swift 5.1 that wasn’t extended to enums.

Well, in Swift 5.1 we can now use switch/case pattern matching to match optional enums with non-optionals, like this:

enum BuildStatus {
    case starting
    case inProgress
    case complete
}

let status: BuildStatus? = .inProgress

switch status {
case .inProgress:
    print("Build is starting…")
case .complete:
    print("Build is complete!")
default:
    print("Some other build status")
}

Swift is able to compare the optional enum directly with the non-optional cases, so that code will print “Build is starting…”

Ordered collection diffing

SE-0240 introduces the ability to calculate and apply the differences between ordered collections. This could prove particularly interesting for developers who have complex collections in table views, where they want to add and remove lots of items smoothly using animations.

The basic principle is straightforward: Swift 5.1 gives us a new difference(from:) method that calculates the differences between two ordered collections – what items to remove and what items to insert. This can be used with any ordered collection that contains Equatable elements.

To demonstrate this, we can create an array of scores, calculate the difference from one to the other, then loop over those differences and apply each one to make our two collections the same.

Note: Because Swift now ships inside Apple’s operating systems, new features like this one must be used with an #available check to make sure the code is being run on an OS that includes the new functionality. For features that will land in an unknown, unannounced operating system shipping at some point in the future, a special version number of “9999” is used to mean “we don’t know what the actual number is just yet.”

Here’s the code:

var scores1 = [100, 91, 95, 98, 100]
let scores2 = [100, 98, 95, 91, 100]

if #available(iOS 9999, *) {
    let diff = scores2.difference(from: scores1)

    for change in diff {
        switch change {
        case .remove(let offset, _, _):
            scores1.remove(at: offset)
        case .insert(let offset, let element, _):
            scores1.insert(element, at: offset)
        }
    }

    print(scores1)
}

For more advanced animations, you can use the third value of the changes: associatedWith. So, rather than using .insert(let offset, let element, _) above you might write .insert(let offset, let element, let associatedWith) instead. This lets you track pairs of changes at the same time: moving an item two places down in your collection is a removal then an insertion, but the associatedWith value ties those two changes together so you treat it as a move instead.

Rather than applying changes by hand, you can apply the whole collection using a new applying() method, like this:

if #available(iOS 9999, *) {
    let diff = scores2.difference(from: scores1)
    let result = scores1.applying(diff) ?? []
}

Creating uninitialized arrays

SE-0245 introduces a new initializer for arrays that doesn’t pre-fill values with a default. This was previously available as a private API, which meant Xcode wouldn’t list it in its code completion but you could still use it if you wanted – and if you were happy to take the risk that it wouldn’t be withdrawn in the future!

To use the initializer, tell it the capacity you want, then provide a closure to fill in the values however you need. Your closure will be given an unsafe mutable buffer pointer where you can write your values, as well as an inout second parameter that lets you report back how many values you actually used.

For example, we could make an array of 10 random integers like this:

let randomNumbers = Array<Int>(unsafeUninitializedCapacity: 10) { buffer, initializedCount in
    for x in 0..<10 {
        buffer[x] = Int.random(in: 0...10)
    }

    initializedCount = 10
}

There are some rules here:

  1. You don’t need to use all the capacity you ask for, but you can’t go over capacity. So, if you ask for a capacity of 10 you can set initializedCount to 0 through 10, but not 11.
  2. If you don’t initialize elements that end up being in your array – for example if you set initializedCount to 5 but don’t actually provide values for elements 0 through 4 – then they are likely to be filled with random data. This is A Bad Idea.
  3. If you don’t set initializedCount it will be 0, so any data you assigned will be lost.

Now, we could have rewritten the above code using map(), like this:

let randomNumbers2 = (0...9).map { _ in Int.random(in: 0...10) }

That’s certainly easier to read, but it’s less efficient: it creates a range, creates a new empty array, sizes it up to the correct amount, loops over the range, and calls the closure once for each range item.

More to come!

Swift 5.1 is still under development, and although the final branching for Swift itself has passed there is still scope to see changes from some of the other associated projects.

Again, the big feature here is module stability, and I know the team are working hard on getting that right. They don’t announce shipping dates, although they have said that 5.1 “has a significantly shorter development” as a result of Swift 5.0 requiring “an unusual amount of focus and attention” – I’m guessing we’ll see a beta at WWDC19, but obviously this isn’t something to be rushed for a particular date.

One thing that deserves special mention is that two of the changes listed here weren’t introduced as a result of Swift Evolution. Instead, the changes – “Warnings for ambiguous none cases” and “Matching optional enums against non-optionals” – were picked up as bugs and corrected quickly.

These are great quality of life improvements in Swift, but the reason I’m calling them out specially is because they were both fixed by a community contributor: Suyash Srijan. It’s fantastic to see development of Swift continue to grow beyond Apple, and Suyash’s work on those two highly visible features is helping make Swift easier and more consistent for everyone.

Best of all, the ambiguous enum bug was filed as a starter bug, which is one that the Swift team have picked out specifically to make it easier for folks to get started contributing. If you’d like to explore the current starter bugs for yourself, and perhaps even take a shot at fixing one, visit http://bit.ly/starterbugs.

HACKING WITH SWIFT LIVE This July is a new two-day event where you'll be inspired by great speakers on day one then learn all the amazing new features from WWDC on day two – click here for more information and tickets.

 

MASTER SWIFT NOW
Buy Testing Swift Buy Practical iOS 12 Buy Pro Swift Buy Swift Design Patterns Buy Swift Coding Challenges Buy Server-Side Swift (Vapor Edition) Buy Server-Side Swift (Kitura Edition) Buy Hacking with macOS Buy Advanced iOS Volume One Buy Advanced iOS Volume Two Buy Hacking with watchOS Buy Hacking with tvOS Buy Hacking with Swift Buy Dive Into SpriteKit Buy Swift in Sixty Seconds Buy Objective-C for Swift Developers Buy Beyond Code

About the author

Paul Hudson is the creator of Hacking with Swift, the most comprehensive series of Swift books in the world. He's also the editor of Swift Developer News, the maintainer of the Swift Knowledge Base, and Mario Kart world champion. OK, so that last part isn't true. If you're curious you can learn more here.

Was this page useful? Let me know!

Average rating: 4.4/5

Click here to visit the Hacking with Swift store >>