Being a Mutable Collection is not Sufficient to be a MutableCollection

The Collection protocol is the basis for collections in Swift. In addition to Collection, the standard library provides four protocols that collections can adopt to document additional capabilities. These protocols refine Collection — any type that conforms to one of them must also conform to Collection.

They are:

  • RandomAccessCollection: A collection that can access any element in constant time. Array is the canonical example.

  • MutableCollection: A collection that supports mutation of its elements through subscript assignment, i.e. array[index] = newValue.

  • RangeReplaceableCollection: A collection that supports insertion and removal of arbitrary subranges of elements.

RandomAccessCollection refines BidirectionalCollection since it is a strict superset — any collection that can jump efficiently to an arbitrary index can be traversed backward. RandomAccessCollection provides no new APIs over BidirectionalCollection; there’s nothing you can do with the former that you couldn’t do with the latter. However, its stricter performance guarantees enable an entire class of algorithms that can only be implemented efficiently with random element access.

You might think that RangeReplaceableCollection should similarly refine MutableCollection because mutation can be modeled with insertion and removal, but that isn’t the case. These two protocols stand side by side — some types only conform to MutableCollection (an example is UnsafeMutableBufferPointer), some only to RangeReplaceableCollection (e.g. String.CharacterView), and only some adopt both (Array and Data).

Let’s look at a few examples to see why.



A MutableCollection supports in-place element mutation. The single new API requirement it adds to Collection is that the subscript now must also have a setter.

A Set is a Collection and it is certainly mutable. It seems therefore logical that it should conform to MutableCollection, yet it doesn’t. The reason why boils down to the protocol’s semantics.

MutableCollection allows changing the values of a collection’s elements, but the protocol’s documentation stipulates that the mutation must neither change the length of the collection nor the order of the elements. Set can’t satisfy either of these requirements.

Let’s start with preserving length. Sets don’t contain duplicate elements, so if you replace one element with a value that is already in the set, the set would have one less element after the mutation.

Sets are also unordered collections — the order of the elements is undefined as far as the code using the collection is concerned. However, internally , sets do have a stable element order that’s defined by their implementation. When you mutate a MutableCollection via subscript assignment, the index of the mutated element must remain stable, i.e. the position of the index in the indices collection must not change. Set can’t meet this requirement because a SetIndex points to the bucket in the set’s internal storage where the corresponding element is stored, and that bucket can change when the element is mutated.


RangeReplaceableCollection adds two requirements to Collection: an empty initializer that creates a new, empty collection, and the replaceSubrange(_:with:) method that replaces the elements in the given range with elements from another collection. The target range and the collection containing the new elements can have different lengths, and either one can be empty. The protocol uses this one method to provide default implementations for removing and inserting elements at arbitrary positions.

Set isn’t a RangeReplaceableCollection either. The main reason why is basically the same as for the missing MutableCollection conformance: it doesn’t satisfy the protocol’s semantics.

The documentation for replaceSubrange(_:with:) specifies that this method has the effect of removing the specified range of elements from the collection and inserting the new elements at the same location. This is fundamentally incompatible with the fact that any insertion or removal can change the internal location of any element in the set.

Moreover, even if Set could somehow maintain a stable internal element order, RangeReplaceableCollection wouldn’t be a good semantic fit for it because most methods the protocol defines don’t make sense for a set. For example, the name of the append(_:) method in RangeReplaceableCollection implies that it inserts an element at the end of the collection. The corresponding operation for Set is rightly called insert(_:) since you can’t meaningfully append anything to an unordered collection.


The story for Dictionary is largely the same as for Set. Both are unordered collections based on a hash table implementation.2 Hence Dictionary can’t conform to MutableCollection and RangeReplaceableCollection for the same reasons Set can’t.

Another aspect is unique to dictionaries. A Dictionary’s element type — i.e. the associated Iterator.Element type it specifies in its Collection conformance — is a (Key, Value) tuple:

struct Dictionary<Key: Hashable, Value>: Collection {
    typealias Element = (key: Key, value: Value)
    typealias Index = DictionaryIndex<Key, Value>

    subscript(position: Index) -> Element {

This means that all APIs Dictionary inherits from Collection and Sequence treat these (Key, Value) pairs as the dictionary’s elements. This is why you get a (Key, Value) pair when you iterate over a Dictionary in a for loop.

The Index is a completely separate type and not in any way related to the Key type. As a result, the dictionary subscript you’re familiar with that takes a Key and returns an Optional<Value> is not the subscript that’s provided by the Collection protocol. Rather, it is an addition that’s defined directly on Dictionary and totally unrelated to Collection. You’ll probably use the dictionary-specific subscript in most situations, but the Collection variant is still there:

let dict = ["Berlin": 1237, "New York": 1626]
dict["Berlin"] // returns Optional<Int>
for index in dict.indices {
    dict[index] // returns (key: String, value: Int) (not optional!)

All Dictionary would gain from conforming to MutableCollection and/or RangeReplaceableCollection would be methods that operate on Index values and (Key, Value) pairs, which is probably not compelling enough to invest anything in the conformance even if it were compatible with the type’s implementation.


The Sequence and Collection protocols form the foundation of Swift’s collection types. The specialized collection types BidirectionalCollection, RandomAccessCollection, MutableCollection, and RandomAccessCollection provide very fine-grained control over the functionality and performance characteristics of your own custom types and algorithms. Semantics are an imporant factor when deciding whether a type should conform to one or more of these protocols.

In the next article I’ll discuss another interesting type in the context of its conformance to the specialized collection protocols: String.CharacterView.

  1. While you can’t jump efficiently to an arbitrary position in a characters collection (because grapheme clusters are variable-length), it’s no problem to find the Character before a given index. ↩︎

  2. Dictionary and Set are so similar that they share a single implementation in the standard library, using the GYB templating language for code generation. You can find it in HashedCollections.swift.gyb↩︎

If you liked this article, I bet you’ll also like Advanced Swift, the book I wrote together with Chris Eidhof and Airspeed Velocity.

The third edition has been fully updated for Swift 4.

Advanced Swift is available as a DRM-free e-book (including Xcode playgrounds) and in print.