Quite new to Objective-C, as I just started researching on an old macOS project for a client. One thing I noticed is that it seems when initializing/assigning an int value to an NSNumber object in Objective-C, there are different ways to do it, for example:
NSNumber *a = [NSNumber numberWithInt:10];
NSNumber *b = [[NSNumber alloc]initWithInt:10];
NSNumber *c = #10;
As far as I can see, they all do the same thing, and the last line is the easiest to type and read, while the second line is just way too convoluted IMHO, so I'm just wondering are there any real differences in the end results from those three different methods, or situations where one specific method should be used because the others won't work?
There is a difference between a & b which was important before ARC when memory management was manual, but today with automatic memory management is essentially irrelevant to the programmer as ARC handles the difference seamlessly.
In pre-ARC days a references a number object which is not owned, while b references one which is owned, and the manual management required for each is different and the programmer needs to know that.
In post-ARC days the management is automatic and the programmer generally does not need to know the difference.
Option c is a shorthand for a that was introduced later and is now the standard way of creating NSNumber objects from literal values. The form #(<expr>) is also provided to create an object from the result of evaluating an <expr>.
Related
Given the following Objective-C example, is it simply a matter of style and ease of reading to keep separate statements or to bundle them into one? Are there any actual benefits of either? Is it a waste of memory to declare individual variables?
NSDictionary *theDict = [anObject methodToCreateDictionary];
NSArray *theValues = [theDict allValues];
NSString *theResult = [theArray componentsJoinedByString:#" "];
or
NSString *theResult = [[[anObject methodToCreateDictionary] theValues] componentsJoinedByString:#" "];
I take the following into consideration when I declare a separate variable:
If I might want to see its value in the debugger.
If I am accessing the variable more than once.
If the line is too long.
There is no practical difference between the two approaches, however.
Also, you haven't asked directly about this, but be aware, when you access objects using dot notation, for example:
myObject.myObjectProperty1.myObjectProperty1Property;
If you are going to access myObjectProperty1Property more than once, it can be advisable to assign it to a local named variable. If you don't, the look-up will be executed more than once.
Now I can't emphasise enough, for many if not most situations this time saving is so infinitesimal as to seriously call into question whether it is worth even spending the time doing extra typing for the assignation! So why am I raising this? Because having said that - stylistic "anality" apart (I just made up a new word) - if the section of code you are writing is running in a tight loop, it can be worth taking the extra care. An example would be when writing the code which populates the cells in a UICollectionView that contains a large number of cells. Additionally, if you are using Core Data and you are using the dot notation to refer to the properties of NSManagedObject properties, then there is far greater overhead with each and every look-up, in which case it is much more surely worth taking the time to assign any values referred to by "nested" dot notation calls to a local variable first.
I've been developing iOs and OsX applications for several months now and it still feels like I'm doing something wrong. I try to stick to the Guidelines and I try to use the objects Apple provides as often as I can. But it seems they are making my code very hard to understand.
Example:
When I want to just "increment" a NSNumber Object (which is not mutable, but you get what I mean), I use awkward lines like this:
int value = [counter intValue];
counter = [NSNumber numberWithInt:value +1];
Is this really necessary? Are there more elegant ways (i++, inc(i), etc) to do simple things like this? Especially when you're working with coordinates it gets really frustrating and hard to work with.
When working with Objective C I feel like I'm allocating, deallocating and converting objects all the time and wasting so much of my own time and the CPU time with all those conversions. Thanks for your time, I really appreciate your answers and I'm looking forward to your tipps!
Using your example, is there any particular reason you are using NSNumber for a counter? It would be much better to use int so that you can use value++.
The key to good Objective-C code is to use objects when they make sense. Don't be afraid to use non-object data types and don't be afraid to drop down (not the best term) to C when required.
As #sosborn wrote: use objects only when it's required. But: when it's required, and you still feel wrong, simply don't. Write a macro for incrementing an NSNumber, use ARC for let the compiler do the memory management for you as efficiently as possible, etc. If you really worried about time, use C or assembly for time-critical tasks, or C++ if you want OO.
P. s.: NSNumber increment macro:
#define NSNUM_INC(n) do { n = [NSNumber numberWithInt:[n intValue] + 1]; } while (0);
You can write your category for NSNumber to implement the methods you need. For your example the file of category contains the following function:
-(NSNumber *)numberByAddingInt:(int)i
{
...
}
Include this file and then you can call it as:
counter = [counter numberByAddingInt:1];
This produces an immutable string object:
NSString* myStringA = #"A"; //CORRECTED FROM: NSMutableString* myStringA = #"A";
This produces a mutable string object:
NSMutableString* myStringB = [NSMutableString stringWithString:#"B"];
But both objects are reported as the same kind of object, "NSCFString":
NSLog(#"myStringA is type: %#, myStringB is type: %#",
[myStringA class], [myStringB class]);
So what is distinguishing these objects internally, and how do I test for that, so that I can easily determine if a mystery string variable is immutable or mutable before doing something evil to it?
The docs include a fairly long explanation on why Apple doesn't want you to do this and why they explicitly do not support it in Receiving Mutable Objects. The summary is:
So don’t make a decision on object
mutability based on what introspection
tells you about an object. Treat
objects as mutable or not based on
what you are handed at the API
boundaries (that is, based on the
return type). If you need to
unambiguously mark an object as
mutable or immutable when you pass it
to clients, pass that information as a
flag along with the object.
I find their NSView example the easiest to understand, and it illustrates a basic Cocoa problem. You have an NSMutableArray called "elements" that you want to expose as an array, but don't want callers to mess with. You have several options:
Expose your NSMutableArray as an NSArray.
Always make a non-mutable copy when requested
Store elements as an NSArray and create a new array every time it mutates.
I've done all of these at various points. #1 is by far the simplest and fastest solution. It's also dangerous, since the array might mutate behind the caller's back. But Apple indicates it's what they do in some cases (note the warning for -subviews in NSView). I can confirm that while #2 and #3 are much safer, they can create major performance problems, which is probably why Apple has chosen not to use them on oft-accessed members like -subviews.
The upshot of all of this is that if you use #1, then introspection will mislead you. You have an NSMutableArray cast as an NSArray, and introspection will indicate that it's mutable (introspection has no way to know otherwise). But you must not mutate it. Only the compile-time type check can tell you that, and so it's the only thing you can trust.
The fix for this would be some kind of fast copy-on-write immutable version of a mutable data structure. That way #2 could possibly be done with decent performance. I can imagine changes to the NSArray cluster that would allow this, but it doesn't exist in Cocoa today (and could impact NSArray performance in the normal case, making it a non-starter). Even if we had it, there's probably too much code out there that relies on the current behavior to ever allow mutability introspection to be trusted.
There's no (documented) way to determine if a string is mutable at runtime or not.
You would expect one of the following would work, but none of them work:
[[s class] isKindOfClass:[NSMutableString class]]; // always returns false
[s isMemberOfClass:[NSMutableString class]]; // always returns false
[s respondsToSelector:#selector(appendString)]; // always returns true
More info here, although it doesn't help you with the problem:
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/111173-mutability.html
If you want to check for debugging purposes the following code should work. Copy on immutable object is itself, while it's a true copy for mutable types, that's what the code is based on. Note that since it's calling copy it's slow, but should be fine for debugging. If you'd like to check for any other reasons than debugging see Rob answer (and forget about it).
BOOL isMutable(id object)
{
id copy = [object copy];
BOOL copyIsADifferentObject = (copy != object);
[copy release];
return copyIsADifferentObject;
}
Disclaimer: of course there is no guarantee that copy is equivalent with retain for immutable types. You can be sure that if isMutable returns NO then it's not mutable so the function should be probably named canBeMutable. In the real world however, it's a pretty safe assumption that immutable types (NSString,NSArray) will implement this optimization. There is a lot of code out including basic things like NSDictionary that expects fast copy from immutable types.
I saw this thread but wanted to confirm:
How to convert NSNumber objects for computational purposes?
So basically anytime you want to deal with these objects you have to unpack their ivars, and then pack them back up into new objects, presumably NSNumbers?
That seems hella weak(and a large pain in the backside, no?).
How do you folks work with these?
Do you avoid them? Subclass them? is there mutable versions?
This just seems like a lot of work to deal with them, would love to hear their benefits and ways more experienced programmers have used them, or what tactics they have used to avoid using them.
Thanks,
Nick
So basically anytime you want to deal with these objects you have to unpack their ivars, and then pack them back up into new objects, presumably NSNumbers?
Yes. (By the way calling doubleValue does not just mean unpack the ivar. There maybe some conversions too.)
That seems hella weak(and a large pain in the backside, no?).
This "boxing" is necessary because primitive numbers by themselves to not support Objective-C (Foundation.framework)'s ref-counting scheme. For example, you have to box a number as NSNumber in order to store them in an NSArray.
Do you avoid them?
You can't.
Subclass them?
You shouldn't, but if you have to, follow how it's suggested:
As with any class cluster, if you create a subclass of NSNumber, you have to override the primitive methods of its superclass, NSValue. Furthermore, there is a restricted set of return values that your implementation of the NSValue method objCType can return, in order to take advantage of the abstract implementations of the non-primitive methods. The valid return values are “c”, “C”, “s”, “S”, “i”, “I”, “l”, “L”, “q”, “Q”, “f”, and “d”.
If all you want is add some convenient methods e.g. -numberByAddingNumber:, use a category:
#implementation NSNumber (MyExtension)
-(NSNumber*)numberByAddingNumber:(NSNumber*)another {
double myVal = [self doubleValue];
double anotherVal = [another doubleValue];
return [NSNumber numberWithDouble:myVal + anotherVal];
}
#end
...
NSNumber* a, *b;
...
NSNumber* c = [a numberByAddingNumber:b];
...
is there mutable versions?
No.
I avoid NSNumbers when I'm going to have to perform arithmetic on a variable. Actually, I avoid them at all times, unless I'm going to be rolling them into Core Data or something.
Now that there are Objective-C Literals in the newest version of clang compiler (version 3.2 up, came with Xcode 4.6 and also can be built from source), you can do stuff like #42 and #(7+35) to "box" NSNumbers.
In Objective C, is there a one-liner or something small to remove (shorten by one) and return the first element of an array, regardless of its index?
I don't know of a method that returns the item removed, but you can do this using a combination of NSArray#objectAtIndex:0 and NSMutableArray#removeObjectAtIndex:0. I suppose you could introduce a new method category on NSMutableArray that implements a shift method.
That would be a poor thing to do.
Objective-C on the iPhone can actually use most of the performance perks of C.
If you look at some of my other posts, you'll see I'm ADAMANTLY against premature optimization, but when you are coding at the C level, there are just some things you don't do unnecessarilly.
Move memory
Duplicate structures
Allocate sparsely populated memory blocks
Inner loops
... (There are lots more, but my C-life is rusty and, as I said, I'm anti-optimization)
What you probably want is a well-implemented queue. Something that pre-allocates a large enough circular memory structure and then has two pointers that track the first and last bytes.
I'd be pretty surprised to hear that Objective-C didn't have a queue data structure.
Also, don't strive for the one-liners. All the stuff about terse code is overrated. If it makes more sense to call a method, so be it.
It's certainly too late to assist the original poster, but if you have a plain NSArray and not an NSMutableArray, this works well:
id myData = myArray.firstObject;
myArray = [myArray subarrayWithRange:NSMakeRange(1, myArray.count - 1)];
Cocoa array objects (NSArray/NSMutableArray) do not provide a one-line equivalent — you would have to read the object first, then remove it. The fact that these classes provide the methods -lastObject and -removeLastObject but not -firstObject and -removeFirstObject should be a reminder that removing from the front of an array is usually an inefficient operation, since the contents must be shifted (copied) one position forward. This is particular true for arrays in C, which are intrinsically tied with pointers.
If you're working with anything but primitive data types and/or very small arrays, you might want to consider that the behavior of "shifting off" the first element is indicative of a queue data structure. For details on how you might create a queue for objects, see this SO question. Personally, my opinion for that question is that a real queue class provides the cleanest programming idiom. You can even define your own method (perhaps as a category on NSMutableArray or another class) that does provide a one-liner to do what you want:
#interface NSMutableArray (QueueOneLiner)
- (id) removeAndReturnFirstObject; // Verbose, but clearer than "shift"
#end
#implementation NSMutableArray (QueueOneLiner)
- (id) removeAndReturnFirstObject {
id object = [[self objectAtIndex:0] retain];
[self removeObjectAtIndex:0];
return [object autorelease];
}
#end
However, by that point the solution will likely cause more overhead than it's worth, depending on the importance you place on simplicity versus performance of the code that uses it.
If you have an array obj *arr where obj is a class/typename and arr is the array, you can just say arr+1 to get the array without the first element.
Use this code,
[arrayName removeObjectAtIndex:0];
this may help you