Consider the follow class (equally applicable to a struct, as well) in a module:
public class Foo {
public func bar() {
// method body
}
}
Note, it does not have an explicit initializer; this example doesn't need any special initialization. This class would be exposed to other modules because it is marked public
. However, when code outside the module attempts to initialize it, the compiler complains:
let foo = Foo() // 'Foo' initializer is inaccessible due to 'internal' protection level
In order to satisfy the compiler, I have to define an explicit empty initializer marked public
:
public class Foo {
public init() {
// This initializer intentionally left empty
}
public func bar() {
// do something useful
}
}
Why, if the class is explicitly public
, do I need to explicitly define a public initializer? Shouldn't it implicitly have a public initializer?
There is a related question here, pertaining to unit testing, but I find it doesn't really get at the core of the design philosophy of what I find to be a surprising issue.
Swift provides a default initializer for any structure or class that provides default values for all of its properties and doesn't provide at least one initializer itself. The default initializer simply creates a new instance with all of its properties set to their default values.
An initializer is a special type of function that is used to create an object of a class or struct. In Swift, we use the init() method to create an initializer. For example, class Wall { ... // create an initializer init() { // perform initialization ... } }
A class can have more than one designated initializer. A convenience initializer is a secondary initializer that must call a designated initializer of the same class. It is useful when you want to provide default values or other custom setup. A class does not require convenience initializers.
A memberwise initializer is an initializer that is automatically generated by the compiler for structs that don't define a custom initializer in their declaration.
Marking a class public does not necessarily imply that the developer wants the class to be initialized publicly. For example, I often write base classes that exist solely for me to be able to subclass them. I give these superclasses internal
initializers so that their subclasses can access them, but those in the outside world shouldn't be using them directly. For example, Operation
in Foundation
has no accessible initializers, yet the class is public. It is simply meant to be subclassed. This is considered an abstract class in Objective-C.
Since Swift doesn't contain explicit support for abstract classes, the act of making a class public but without public initializers basically serves as an abstract class (except each function must still have a default definition, either in the class itself or some protocol extension).
With this in mind, here are some Swift rules:
private
, all variables, inits, and functions will default to private
.internal
(which is default), public
, or open
, all variables, inits, and functions will default to internal
.public
in Objective-C are imported into Swift as open
, due to there being no such distinction in Objective-C.That second one is the one you are running into. The default init is picking up the default internal
because the last thing Swift wants to do is expose your init as public API unless it is explicitly instructed to do so.
Note: In my tests (at least in the playground), it seems that with the introduction of fileprivate
:
private
or fileprivate
, it seems that class members default to fileprivate
unless explicitly annotated private
.If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With