This question already has answers here:
Error accessing generated ivars when I override setters and getters in Modern Objective-C
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I'm learning the Swift programing language and during this I sometimes get in touch with the old Objective-C programming language and its code.
I'm an absolutely beginner and therefore I have some question for better understanding the Setter and Getter.
So, I know that I can create an instance variable through curly braces in the .h file but normally I use properties. These properties are backed by an instance variable and offer automatically a Getter and Setter Method.
Example:
Vehicle .h file:
#interface Vehicle : NSObject
#property int myProperty;
#end
Because I created this property I don't have to declare a Getter and Setter method in the vehicle.m file because they are automatically created by the compiler. So I can create a vehicle-object, set and get the value.
Example
main.m
Vehicle *myvehicle = [[vehicle alloc] init];
[myvehicle myProperty] // myvehicle.myProperty
[myvehicle setMyProperty : 10] // myvehicle.myProperty = 10;
Now I read that it is possible to override the automatically created Getter and Setter method of my created property "myProperty". When declaring my own version of the Getter and Setter I have to declare two methods in the vehicle.h and vehicle.m file. In the vehicle.m file I don't call the object by using the self keyword but by using it's automatically created instance variable (_myProperty). Is it right?
I tried it but alway get an error and I don't know why and what is the point.
Example
Vehicle .h file:
#interface Vehicle : NSObject
#property int myProperty;
-(int) myProperty; //my new Getter method
-(void) setMyProperty: (int)updatedMyProperty; //My new Setter method
#end
vehicle .m file:
#implementation Vehicle
-(int) myProperty {
if (! _myProperty) {
_myProperty = NO;
}
return _myProperty;
}
-(void) setMyProperty: (int)updatedMyProperty {
if (_myProperty == updatedMyProperty) return;
_myProperty = updatedMyProperty;
}
#end
I always get the error "Use of undeclared identifier" and I don't know why. If I understand right I don't have to declare the ivar or its name using #synthesize because the compiler automatically creates the ivar called _myProperty for me. I just have to use #synthesize when I want to change the ivar's name.
I'm not sure why I get stuck and what the point is. Could you explain it?
Thanks in advance!
If you implement all of the accessor methods, the compiler will no longer automatically synthesize the ivar for you. In this case, you have to explicitly do so yourself. E.g.
#synthesize myProperty = _myProperty;
This is only necessary when you have manually implemented all of the accessor methods. The reason is that the compiler is smart enough to know that if you're taking over the accessor methods, you may well not need the ivar, namely that you might be doing something radically different, e.g. computing values from some other property, setting/getting values from some different store, etc. You may want the compiler to synthesize the ivar (in which case you add the above #synthesize statement), but it's equally likely that you've implemented the accessor methods because no backing ivar is needed (in which case you'd omit the above #synthesize statement).
Anyway, staying with your simple example, you get something like:
#interface Vehicle : NSObject
#property (nonatomic) int myProperty; // if you don't write atomic accessor methods, you really should be explicit that this is nonatomic
// as an aside, even if you implement accessor methods, you don't have to declare them here
//
// -(int) myProperty; //my new Getter method
// -(void) setMyProperty: (int)updatedMyProperty; //My new Setter method
#end
And
#implementation Vehicle
// since you implemented all of the accessor properties, you have to manually synthesize the ivar
#synthesize myProperty = _myProperty;
- (int) myProperty {
// do whatever you want here; note, the following doesn't make sense
//
// if (! _myProperty) {
// _myProperty = NO;
// }
return _myProperty;
}
- (void)setMyProperty:(int)updatedMyProperty {
if (_myProperty == updatedMyProperty) return;
_myProperty = updatedMyProperty;
}
#end
Clearly, there's no point in writing these particular accessor methods in the above example, because you're not offering any new functionality, so you wouldn't. You'd just avail yourself of the auto-synthesized accessor methods.
But in those cases that you really need to write your own accessor methods, then you have to explicitly tell the compiler whether you need it to synthesize the ivar for you, too, or not.
Related
Is there any difference in behaviour - either at compile time or at run time - between this code...
// MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property (nonatomic) SomeType myProperty;
#end
// MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass
#end
... and this code?
// MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
-(SomeType)myProperty;
-(void)setMyProperty:(SomeType)myProperty;
#end
// MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass {
SomeType _myProperty;
}
-(SomeType)myProperty {
return _myProperty;
}
-(void)setMyProperty:(SomeType)myProperty {
_myProperty = myProperty;
}
#end
Obviously, the former version is more succinct and readable, but is there any difference in behavior? Do the synthesized getter and setter do anything more sophisticated than my straightforward implementation here? Is the declaration of a property distinguishable by introspection functions from declaration of a getter and setter? Are there any other differences I haven't thought of?
Short answer: No difference. However, some property attributes (copy or atomic) may require different accessor methods.
Long answer: There is a group of introspection functions that allow you to access all #properties declared for given class or protocol:
class_getProperty
class_copyPropertyList
protocol_getProperty
protocol_copyPropertyList
property_getName
property_getAttributes
I don't think any of these functions is useful in production code, because this is basically an implementation detail of the class. Also, there may be a getter/setter exposed in the public interface and a private property hidden in class extension.
Oh, and there's one other difference: Xcode highlights properties and plain getters differently :)
One difference is memory management. You can configure your properties to for example copy the object being set or to use a weak variable. Your code seem to be assuming ARC is active, since you are not releasing the old object and retaining the new object.
Before ARC a typical setter would to something like
-(void)setMyProperty:(SomeType *)myProperty {
if (myProperty == _myProperty) return;
[_myProperty release];
_myProperty = myProperty;
[_myProperty retain];
}
When you say you use ARC, then there is only a small difference. But none that matters.
Your ivar is #protected.
A #property creates an ivar which is #private.
Generally speaking:
So when you subclass, it is possible for your subclass to directly access the ivar you created, but not the one the property created.
BUT since you put your ivar in the #implementation block, the ivar is never seen by the subclass.
Without ARC however and SomeType being not an Objective-C object, there is a big difference. Then your setter/getter wouldn't have retain/release messages included.
I am using ARC.
This is my .h file
...
- (id)initWithCoordinate:(CLLocationCoordinate2D)c title:(NSString *)t;
#property (nonatomic, readonly) CLLocationCoordinate2D coordinate;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *title;
...
This is my .m file
....
#synthesize coordinate, title;
- (id)initWithCoordinate:(CLLocationCoordinate2D)c title:(NSString *)t
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
coordinate = c;
[self setTitle:t];
}
return self;
}
....
Is setting coordinate this way, the right way to do it? Given that I declare it as readonly, it seems like it is the only way to do it. What if I just use the default (i.e. readwrite), in this case, should I use the setter method [self setCoordinate] instead?
I could set the title by doing title = t as well. Compare to using the setter method, the result is the same, but what is the difference ?
Thanks! Wish I could accept all of your answers.
You're actually supposed to set ivars directly in an initializer method all the time. This is true whether or not you have a readonly or readwrite property. The documentation here even says so.
The reasoning behind this has to do with inheritance. If someone were to subclass your class and overwrite the setters for your properties such that they bypass the ivars you created (or do some other wacky thing), then suddenly your original implementation of your initializer method now no longer does what it is written to do. In particular, your initializer could end up creating an object with a weird state due to the subclass overriding your accessors. In the pre-ARC days, you could also end up with tricky (or just straight-up broken) memory situations when this sort of thing happens. The take-away message is: you should write initializers so that they will always create an object with a known valid state.
So (assuming you're using ARC) your initializer should actually be:
- (id)initWithCoordinate:(CLLocationCoordinate2D)c title:(NSString *)t
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
coordinate = c;
title = [t copy];
}
return self;
}
Personally, I prefer to synthesize ivars with a starting underscore to clarify when I'm using the property and when I'm accessing the ivar directly (LLVM 4.0 now does this to automatically synthesized properties as well).
#synthesize coordinate = _coordinate;
#synthesize title = _title;
- (id)initWithCoordinate:(CLLocationCoordinate2D)c title:(NSString *)t
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_coordinate = c;
_title = [t copy];
}
return self;
}
1: As your code is now, yes, that is the right way to do it. If you weren't using ARC (assuming you are currently), you'd also want to retain the value to assert ownership. This will be done automatically under ARC. Keep in mind that that is not the only way of doing it; you could redeclare the property as readwrite in the class extension in the implementation file. This is a common practice which allows you to have the benefits of a readwrite property while having the property still be readonly to users of the class. Ex.
//MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, strong, readonly) NSNumber* number;
- (void) initWithNumber:(NSNumber*)number;
#end
//MyClass.m
#interface MyClass ()
#property (nonatomic, strong, readwrite) NSNumber* number;
#end
#implementation MyClass
//this changes the instance variable backing the property to _number.
#synthesize number = _number;
- (void) initWithNumber:(NSNumber*)number{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.number = number;
}
return self;
}
#end
At the end of the day, I'd say it's a good habit to use setters whenever you can to keep things KVO compliant and so that you always know when values change. For instance, if you have a custom UIView with a property that is reflected in its appearance, chances are you'd want to redisplay yourself when it changes. The easiest way to do this is to implement the setter yourself and call setNeedsDisplay after setting the value. You couldn't do that if you set the instance value backing the property directly; the user of the class would have to remember to call setneedsDisplay every time they set it, manually.
2: One goes through the setter method, giving you a way to know when a value is going to be set, while one sets a value to the instance variable backing the property. The setter method will always handle memory management in the way it was told to, while it's up to you to do things such as copying values for a copy setter if you assign directly to an instance variable, so that you maintain some consistent scheme. Going through setters sometimes, and not others can lead to some nasty bugs if you don't be careful. Never going through setters makes it hard to know when values change, making it near impossible to weed out invalid values. For instance, if you had an int property you wanted to limit to values in some range and someone passed in a value under the minimum limit, you'd probably want to set the property to the lowest possible value in the range. You can't do that without the value going through the setter first.
Yes, it is fine to set it like that. If you prefer to use a property all the time you can override the property to be read/write rather than read-only in a class extension. In Foo.m:
#interface Foo ()
#property (nonatomic) CLLocationCoordinate2D coordinate;
#end
#implementation Foo {
// ...
self.coordinate = c;
}
Setting the coordinate that way is correct, and is the only way to do it if you have declared the property readonly.
Setting the title using title = t is different than setting the title using [self setTitle:t]. If you directly assign to the instance variable, you will just retain the NSString instance that was passed as argument t. But if you using the accessor method, the accessor will ask the string to copy itself (because you declared the property copy). If the string you were given as argument t is actually an NSMutableString, then you will get an immutable copy of it. If the string you were given as argument t is already an immutable string, it will just return itself when asked for a copy.
self.coordinate = c;
is essentially compiled to be the same as calling
[self setCoordinate:c];
The difference between coordinate = c and [self setCoordinate:c]; is that the first is just setting a variable directly where as the second is calling a method.
The reason to be wary is that methods could potentially have side effects depending on how the implementation is written e.g. (stupid example)
- (void)setCoordinate:(CLLocationCoordinate2D)coordinate;
{
_coordinate = coordinate;
[self doSomethingCrazy];
}
I'm just starting to learn Objective-C, one thing I'm trying to learn is good Property use. I'm currently trying to create some properties with custom setters. This is how far I've gotten:
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, assign) int myNumber;
#end
#implementation MyClass
#dynamic myNumber;
- (int)myNumber {
return ???;
}
- (void)setMyNumber:newNumber {
myNumber = newNumber;
// custom stuff here
}
I really just want to implement a custom setter, I'm fine with the getter being default. However, how do I access the variable directly? If I put "return self.myNumber", won't that just call the getter method and infinite loop?
Property access functions are only called when using the x.p notation. You can access the instance variable backing the property with just p (in Objective C, all members have the class instance variables in scope). You can, if you really want, also access via the pointer deference notation ->. So, any of these two:
return p;
return self->p;
However, you needn't use #dynamic here. #synthesize is smart, and will only create defaults if you've not provided them. So feel free to just
#synthesize p;
Which will create the getter, but not the setter in this case.
- (int)myNumber {
return myNumber;
}
I have a category on an existing class that adds a property and a few methods to the class.
#interface AClass (ACategory) {
NSString *aProperty;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *aProperty;
#end
In the implementation file, I want to release this property when the object is deallocated. However, if I declare dealloc in this class, it will override the dealloc from the original class from what I understand. What then is the proper way to release this aProperty when the object is deallocated?
#implementation AClass (ACategory)
#synthesize aProperty;
- (void)dealloc {
[aProperty release];
// this will skip the original dealloc method from what I understand
[super dealloc];
}
#end
Well, this is a little problematic, since your code is wrong.
You can't declare instance variables in a category; using the latest Objective-C ABI, you can declare new instance variables within a class extension (#interface AClass () {//...), but that is different from a category (#interface AClass (ACategory)).
Even if you could, the syntax for instance variable declaration is that they be enclosed in curly braces after the #interface line.
You can declare a property in a category, but you'll have to define its storage without using a new instance variable (hence, #dynamic instead of #synthesize).
As to your actual question, you can't call the original implementation of an overridden method unless you use method-swizzling (facilitated by runtime functions like method_exchangeImplementations). I recommend against doing this anyway; it's really frightening and dangerous.
Update: Explanation of Instance Variables in Class Extensions
A class extension is like a category, but it is anonymous and must be placed within the .m file associated with the original class. It looks like:
#interface SomeClass () {
// any extra instance variables you wish to add
}
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *aProperty;
#end
Its implementation must be in the main #implementation block for your class. Thus:
#implementation SomeClass
// synthesize any properties from the original interface
#synthesize aProperty;
// this will synthesize an instance variable and accessors for aProperty,
// which was declared in the class extension.
- (void)dealloc {
[aProperty release];
// perform other memory management
[super dealloc];
}
#end
So, a class extension is useful for keeping private instance variables and methods out of the public interface, but will not help you add instance variables to a class over which you haven't control. There is no issue with overriding -dealloc, because you just implement it like you normally would, whilst including any necessary memory management for the instance variables you introduced within the class extension.
Please note that this stuff works only with the latest 64-bit Objective-C ABI.
As an aside, you can use associated references to "simulate the addition of object instance variables to an existing class".
Essentially, you can add an associated object as below:
static void* ASI_HTTP_REQUEST; // declare inside the category #implementation but outside any method
// And within a method, init perhaps
objc_setAssociatedObject(self,
&ASI_HTTP_REQUEST,
request,
OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
And release the associated object by sending 'nil':
// And release the associated object
objc_setAssociatedObject(self,
&ASI_HTTP_REQUEST,
nil,
OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
The Apple documentation is here.
It took me a while to find, so I hope that it helps someone.
I'm new to C, new to objective C. For an iPhone subclass, Im declaring variables I want to be visible to all methods in a class into the #interface class definition eg
#interface myclass : UIImageView {
int aVar;
}
and then I declare it again as
#property int aVar;
And then later I
#synthesize aVar;
Can you help me understand the purpose of three steps? Am I doing something unnecessary?
Thanks.
Here, you're declaring an instance variable named aVar:
#interface myclass : UIImageView {
int aVar;
}
You can now use this variable within your class:
aVar = 42;
NSLog(#"The Answer is %i.", aVar);
However, instance variables are private in Objective-C. What if you need other classes to be able to access and/or change aVar? Since methods are public in Objective-C, the answer is to write an accessor (getter) method that returns aVar and a mutator (setter) method that sets aVar:
// In header (.h) file
- (int)aVar;
- (void)setAVar:(int)newAVar;
// In implementation (.m) file
- (int)aVar {
return aVar;
}
- (void)setAVar:(int)newAVar {
if (aVar != newAVar) {
aVar = newAVar;
}
}
Now other classes can get and set aVar via:
[myclass aVar];
[myclass setAVar:24];
Writing these accessor and mutator methods can get quite tedious, so in Objective-C 2.0, Apple simplified it for us. We can now write:
// In header (.h) file
#property (nonatomic, assign) int aVar;
// In implementation (.m) file
#synthesize aVar;
...and the accessor/mutator methods will be automatically generated for us.
To sum up:
int aVar; declares an instance variable aVar
#property (nonatomic, assign) int aVar; declares the accessor and mutator methods for aVar
#synthesize aVar; implements the accessor and mutator methods for aVar
This declares an instance variable in your object:
#interface myclass : UIImageView {
int aVar;
}
Instance variables are private implementation details of your class.
If you want other objects to be able to read or set the value of the instance variable (ivar), you can declare it as a property:
#property int aVar;
This means that the compiler expects to see setter and getter accessor methods for the property.
When you use the #synthesize keyword, you are asking the compiler to automatically generate setter and getter accessor methods for you.
So, in this case the compiler will generate code similar to this when it encounters the #synthesize keyword:
- (int) aVar
{
return aVar;
}
- (void)setAVar:(int)someInt
{
aVar = someInt;
}
By default on the iPhone (and on the 32-bit runtime on the Mac), #synthesize requires an instance variable to be present in order to store the property's value. This ivar is usually named the same as the property, but doesn't have to be, for instance you could do this:
#interface myclass : UIImageView {
int aVar;
}
#property int someValue;
#synthesize someValue = aVar;
Neither #synthesize nor #property are actually required, you can create your own getter and setter methods, and as long as you create them using Key-Value Coding-compliant syntax, the property will still be usable.
The requirement for an ivar to be present as well as the #property declaration is due to the fragile base class limitation of the 32-bit Objective-C runtime on both the Mac and iPhone. With the 64-bit runtime on the Mac you don't need an ivar, #synthesize generates one for you.
Note that there are numerous keywords you can use with your #property declaration to control what sort of synthesized accessor code is created, such as readonly for a getter-only accessor, copy, atomic, nonatomic and so on. More information is in the Objective-C 2.0 Programming Language documentation.
Classes can have instance variables (ivars). These are in the first section, and are only visible to code in that class, not any outside code. I like to prefix them with an underscore to show their internal-ness. In low level terms, the ivars are added as an additional member to the struct that the class you are creating uses internally.
The second declaration, #property, is a declared property. It is not required (except when you are using #synthesize), but it helps other programmers (and the compiler!) know that you are dealing with a property, and not just two methods -setAVar and -aVar, which is the alternative way of doing this.
Thirdly, the #synthesize actually creates the methods to set and access the property from outside the class. You can replace this with your own setter and getter methods, but only do that if you need to, as the built-in ones have some features that you would otherwise have to code yourself. In fact, using the #synthesize aVar = _someVariable; syntax, you can have your property actually reference a differently named instance variable!
Short version:
The #property is just a hint to the compiler and other programmers that you are making a property and not just getter/setter methods. The instance variables are internal to the class, and otherwise cannot be normally accessed from outside it. The #synthesize just creates simple getters and setters for you, to go with your #property, but you can also just code those getters and setters yourself, like any other method.
Class A
#interface myclass : UIImageView {
int aVar;
}
If you declare like this then you can only use this variable within your class A.
But suppose in Class B
A *object=[A new];
object.aVar---->not available
For this you should **declare aVar as a property in Class A**
so class A should look like
Class A
#interface myclass : UIImageView {
int aVar;
}
#property int iVar;
and
.m file
#synthesize iVar;
So now you can use this iVar in another class Suppose B
Class B
#import "Class A.h"
enter code here
A *object=[A new];
object.aVar---->available
means
object.aVar=10;
#interface declares the instances variables of a class in obj-c. You need it to create an instance variable. However the variable is not visible outside the class by default (as the field is by default protected).
#property tells the compiler to specify a particular property accessor (get/set) method. However, you will need to use #synthesize to actually have the compiler generate the simple accessors automatically, otherwise you are expected to create them on your own.
I recently started learning iphone apps. As per my knowledge #property is used in .h file as a setter method and #synthesize in .m file as getter method. In Java we use setter and getter methods, same as Java, in Objective C we use #property and #synthesize.
Please forgive me If u think I mislead you.