mikeash.com: just this guy, you know?

Posted at 2017-12-15 14:09 | RSS feed (Full text feed) | Blog Index
Next article: Friday Q&A 2018-04-27: Generating Text With Markov Chains in Swift
Previous article: Friday Q&A 2017-11-10: Observing the A11's Heterogenous Cores
Tags: fridayqna swift
Friday Q&A 2017-12-08: Type Erasure in Swift
by Mike Ash  

You might have heard the term type erasure. You might have even used type-erased types in the standard library, such as AnySequence. But what exactly is type erasure and how do you do it yourself? In this article, I'll explore type erasure, why you'd want it, and how to make it happen, a topic suggested by Lorenzo Boaro.

There are times when you want to hide an underlying type from outside users. Sometimes it's just a matter of hiding implementation details. In other cases, it can prevent a static type from spreading through the codebase, or allow distinct types to interoperate. Type erasure is the process of removing a specific type annotation in favor of a more general one.

Protocols or abstract superclasses could be considered a really simple form of type erasure. Take NSString as an example. You never get a plain NSString instance; it's always an instance of some concrete subclass, usually private. That is mostly hidden from view, though, and the APIs all work with NSString. All of the various subclasses can be used without having to know what they are, and without having to sprinkle your code with their types.

More advanced techniques become useful when dealing with Swift's generics and protocols with associated types. Swift doesn't allow using such protocols as concrete types. For example, if you want to write some code that accepts any Sequence of Int values, you can't write this:

    func f(seq: Sequence<Int>) { ...

That's not legal Swift. You can specialize generic types that way, but not protocols. You can work around this using generics:

    func f<S: Sequence>(seq: S) where S.Element == Int { ...

Sometimes this works great, but there are cases where it can be troublesome. Often you can't just add generics in one spot: one generic function requires others to be generic which require yet more.... Even worse, you can't use this for return values or properties at all. This won't work the way you want it to at all:

    func g<S: Sequence>() -> S where S.Element == Int { ...

We're looking for something where g can return any conforming type, but instead this allows the caller to choose which type it wants, and g is then required to provide an appropriate value.

Swift provides the AnySequence type to solve this problem. AnySequence wraps an arbitrary Sequence and erases its type, providing access to it through the AnySequence type instead. Using this, we can rewrite f and g:

    func f(seq: AnySequence<Int>) { ...

    func g() -> AnySequence<Int> { ...

The generics disappear and all the specific types are still hidden. There's a small code complexity and runtime cost from having to wrap the values in AnySequence, but the code is nice and clean.

The Swift standard library has a bunch of these Any types, such as AnyCollection, AnyHashable, and AnyIndex. It can be useful to create your own to go along with your own generics and protocols, or just use the techniques to simplify your code when dealing with them. Let's explore the various ways to accomplish type erasure.

Type Erasure With Classes
We need to wrap up some common functionality from multiple types without exposing those types. This sounds a lot like a superclass-subclass relationship, and in fact we can use subclasses to implement type erasure. The superclass can expose an API that's blind to the underlying implementation type, and a subclass can implement that API with knowledge of the underlying type.

Let's see how our own version of AnySequence would look using this technique. I'll call it MAnySequence to incorporate my name:

    class MAnySequence<Element>: Sequence {

This class is also going to need an iterator type that it can return from the makeIterator method. We have to perform type erasure twice so that we can hide the underlying Sequence type as well as its Iterator type. This inner Iterator class conforms to IteratorProtocol and implements its next method to call fatalError. Swift doesn't have built-in support for abstract classes, so this will have to suffice:

        class Iterator: IteratorProtocol {
            func next() -> Element? {
                fatalError("Must override next()")

MAnySequence gets a similar implementation of makeIterator. It calls fatalError to encourage its subclass to override it:

        func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
            fatalError("Must override makeIterator()")

That is the type-erased public API. The private implementation subclasses it. The public class is parameterized by the element type, but the private implementation class is parameterized by the sequence type it wraps:

    private class MAnySequenceImpl<Seq: Sequence>: MAnySequence<Seq.Element> {

This class needs an internal subclass of the internal Iterator class from above:

        class IteratorImpl: Iterator {

It wraps an instance of the sequence's Iterator type:

            var wrapped: Seq.Iterator

            init(_ wrapped: Seq.Iterator) {
                self.wrapped = wrapped

It implements next to call through to that wrapped iterator:

            override func next() -> Seq.Element? {
                return wrapped.next()

Similarly, MAnySequenceImpl wraps an instance of the sequence:

        var seq: Seq

        init(_ seq: Seq) {
            self.seq = seq

It implements makeIterator to get an iterator from wrapped sequence, and then wrap that iterator in IteratorImpl:

        override func makeIterator() -> IteratorImpl {
            return IteratorImpl(seq.makeIterator())


We need a way to actually create these things. A static method on MAnySequence creates an instance of MAnySequenceImpl and returns it to the caller as an MAnySequence:

    extension MAnySequence {
        static func make<Seq: Sequence>(_ seq: Seq) -> MAnySequence<Element> where Seq.Element == Element {
            return MAnySequenceImpl<Seq>(seq)

In production code, we would probably want to clean this up a bit by using an extra level of indirection so that MAnySequence could provide an initializer instead.

Let's try it out:

    func printInts(_ seq: MAnySequence<Int>) {
        for elt in seq {

    let array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
    printInts(MAnySequence.make(array[1 ..< 4]))

It works!

Type Erasure With Functions
We want to expose functionality from multiple types without exposing those types. A natural approach for this is to store functions whose signatures only involve the types we want to expose. The function bodies can be created in a context where the underlying implementation types are known.

Let's look at how MAnySequence would look with this approach. It starts off similar to the previous implementation, although this one can be a struct rather than a class because it's just a dumb container and there's no inheritance:

    struct MAnySequence<Element>: Sequence {

Like before, it needs an Iterator that it can return. This one is also a struct and it contains a stored property which is a function that takes no parameters and returns an Element?, which is the signature used for the next method in IteratorProtocol. It then implement IteratorProtocol to call that function:

        struct Iterator: IteratorProtocol {
            let _next: () -> Element?

            func next() -> Element? {
                return _next()

MAnySequence itself is similar: it contains a stored property which is a function that takes no arguments and returns an Iterator. Sequence is then implemented by calling through to that function:

        let _makeIterator: () -> Iterator

        func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
            return _makeIterator()

MAnySequence's init is where the magic happens. It takes an arbitrary Sequence as its parameter:

        init<Seq: Sequence>(_ seq: Seq) where Seq.Element == Element {

It then needs to wrap the functionality of this sequence in a function:

            _makeIterator = {

How do we make an iterator here? We'll start by asking seq to make one:

                var iterator = seq.makeIterator()

Then we'll wrap that iterator in Iterator. Its _next function can just call iterator's next method:

                return Iterator(_next: { iterator.next() })


Here's some code that uses it:

    func printInts(_ seq: MAnySequence<Int>) {
        for elt in seq {

    let array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
    printInts(MAnySequence(array[1 ..< 4]))

This one works too!

This function-based approach to type erasure can be particularly nice when you need to wrap a small amount of functionality as part of a larger type, and don't need separate classes implementing the entire functionality of whatever types you're erasing.

For example, let's say you want to write some code that works with various collection types, but all it really needs to be able to do with those collections is get a count and do a zero-based integer subscript. For example, this might be a table view data source. It might then look like this:

    class GenericDataSource<Element> {
        let count: () -> Int
        let getElement: (Int) -> Element

        init<C: Collection>(_ c: C) where C.Element == Element, C.Index == Int {
            count = { c.count }
            getElement = { c[$0 - c.startIndex] }

Then the rest of the code in GenericDataSource can easily call count() and getElement() to perform operations on that passed-in collection, without that collection type contaminating GenericDataSource's generic parameters.

Type erasure is a useful technique for stopping the viral spread of generics in your code, or just keeping interfaces simple. It's accomplished by wrapping the underlying type in a way which separates the API from the functionality. This can be done with an abstract public superclass and a private subclass, or it can be done by wrapping the API in functions. Type erasure with functions is particularly useful for simple cases where you only need a few pieces of functionality.

The Swift standard library provides several type erased types that you can take advantage of. For example, AnySequence wraps a Sequence, as the name indicates, and lets you iterate over a sequence without needing to know its type. AnyIterator is the companion to this type, providing a type-erased iterator. AnyHashable provides type-erased access to Hashable types. There are a few more for the various collection protocols. Search the documentation for Any to see those. The standard library also uses type erasure as part of the Codable API: KeyedEncodingContainer and KeyedDecodingContainer are type-erased wrappers around the corresponding container protocols, and are used to allow Encoder and Decoder implementations to provide containers without having to incorporate the container types into the API.

That's it for today! Come back next time for more programming fun and games. Friday Q&A is driven by reader suggestions, so if you have a topic you'd like to see me cover here, please send it in!

Did you enjoy this article? I'm selling whole books full of them! Volumes II and III are now out! They're available as ePub, PDF, print, and on iBooks and Kindle. Click here for more information.


Hi Mike, thanks for the article. Small point: In "Type Erasure With Functions," I don't think the Iterator's "next" method needs to be mutating because the reference to _next does not change; state is maintained in the closure.
Jonah: Thanks for pointing that out. I just took what Xcode gave me for autocompletion, and the protocol has mutating in it. It's harmless to have it here, but unnecessary, so I'll remove it.
I hope Swift gets generalised existentials some day so that you could write Any<Sequence where .Element == String> and get automatic erasure of Self and other associated types.

The stdlib can then define typealias AnySequence<T> = Any<Sequence where .Element == T> because that particular form of Sequence erasure is extremely common. And so on.

In my own projects, I heavily use protocols and associated types, but not having a built-in erasure feature makes it hard to do protocol-oriented programming and at the same time actually do real work instead of writing & testing (error-prone) boilerplate.
In the first example, Type Erasure with Class, should this:

override func makeIterator() -> IteratorImpl {
        return IteratorImpl(seq.makeIterator())

be this?:

override func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
        return IteratorImpl(seq.makeIterator())

IteratorImpl is implementation details that should not be exposed, right?
And ...

class IteratorImpl { ...

should be

private IteratorImpl { ...

I guess making "private" at:

private class MAnySequenceImpl ... { ...

is not enough. Nested class inside private class is still accessible from outside?
class GenericDataSource<Element> { ...

doesn't compile:

count = { c.count }

error: cannot convert value of type 'C.IndexDistance' to closure result type 'Int'

init<C: Collection>(_ c: C) where C.Element == Element, C.Index == Int {


init<C: Collection>(_ c: C) where C.Element == Element, C.Index == Int, C.IndexDistance == Int {


class GenericDataSource<Element> { ... }

compile. Not sure if this is the right thing to do. But it compile now...

Comments RSS feed for this page

Add your thoughts, post a comment:

Spam and off-topic posts will be deleted without notice. Culprits may be publicly humiliated at my sole discretion.

Web site:
Formatting: <i> <b> <blockquote> <code>. URLs are automatically hyperlinked.
Code syntax highlighting thanks to Pygments.
Hosted at DigitalOcean.