I'm trying to cast from an id __autoreleasing * to a CFTypeRef * (void **).
I've tried:
id __autoreleasing *arg = [OCMArg setTo:mockData];
CFTypeRef expectedResult = (__bridge CFTypeRef) *arg;
[[[self.mockSecItemService expect] andReturnValue:OCMOCK_VALUE(mockCopyStatus)] copyItemMatching:queryCheck
result:&expectedResult];
But the code crashes when the autorelease pool is drained.
How does one convert to void** in an ARC environment?
I do not know the APIs you are using, so I'm not 100% sure of what's going on. I googled and they seem to be part of OCMock. I downloaded it and (without installing it as I'm not interested) I rapidly browsed the source.
I see something very fishy in that code. Here's how they implement the first method you call:
#implementation OCMArg
....
+ (id *)setTo:(id)value
{
return (id *)[[[OCMPassByRefSetter alloc] initWithValue:value] autorelease];
}
So they are returning an id* which is really just an id.
To me that's either a nonsense/error or an attempt to manipulate ObjC internals (even if undocumented, the first thing an ObjC object stores is in fact a pointer to the object class and is therefore of type Class which is compatible with id, therefore it somehow is valid to cast a pointer to an object or an id that refers to an object, to Class* or id*). I have no time or interest in going and studying the whole API to figure out why they do that. They may actually have a good reason (for example if you only pass that result to another API that knows what it's supposed to be, but you are doing more than that here). Instead of studying OCMock I'll try to explain you what is happening as far as I can say (ObjC and ARC).
id __autoreleasing *arg = [OCMArg setTo:mockData];
ARC will do absolutely nothing in this line of code.
What that method does you can see above. Class OCMPassByRefSetter is a simple class that just stores the argument after retaining it, so mockData is retained. The OCMPassByRefSetter is autoreleased and will disappear at the next drain (releasing the mockData and making *arg reference to released memory).
Note that arg in fact points to the isa of the OCMPassByRefSetter (the isa is the "first" ivar of any object, it's of type Class and points to the class of the object. But this is undocumented and may change at any time).
CFTypeRef expectedResult = (__bridge CFTypeRef) *arg;
*arg is of type id which is compatible with CFTypeRef, so the cast is valid. You use __bridge so ARC does absolutely nothing.
If arg pointed to a "toll free bridged" CF/Cocoa class this would be perfectly valid code but you'd have to be careful that expectedResult would become invalid at the next drain (it's not retained, but it's live as an autoreleased instance).
[[[self.mockSecItemService expect] andReturnValue:OCMOCK_VALUE(mockCopyStatus)] copyItemMatching:queryCheck
result:&expectedResult];
No idea what this line does. Given the prototype you posted in the comment above, ARC does nothing on the part result:&expectedResult.
You say it's a wrapper around SecItemCopyMatching, but as I understand it it's more than that. If it was just immediately calling SecItemCopyMatching passing it the result: argument, you'd likely be messing things up. But the name expectedResult and the fact that this is OCMock makes me think this is a little more complex than that.
You'll have to investigate it yourself a bit. But remember:
as soon as the current function exits, the argument you passed (&expectedResult) will become invalid as it's a local variable.
as soon as there is a drain, the value of expectedResult will become invalid, as that address points to memory that is going to be deallocated by the drain.
doing anything with the value of expectedResult is likely do be going very wrong as I do not think that a Class qualifies as "toll free bridged".
I suspect, but I may be very wrong, that you are not using the OCMock apis the way they are intended to be used. But on this front I cannot help you, and maybe you are actually doing it right.
Rather than try and figure out how to cast the variable into the correct format (OCMock is doing some complex things internally), I added another method, to handle the conversion.
- (OSStatus)findItemMatching:(NSDictionary *)query result:(id __autoreleasing *)outResult {
NSAssert(outResult, #"outResult is required");
CFTypeRef result = nil;
OSStatus status = [self copyItemMatching:query result:&result];
if (result) {
*outResult = CFBridgingRelease(result);
}
return status;
}
So, I'm attempting to have a method that effectively does this:
- (void)doWhile: (/*some magical type*/)condition
{
while (condition)
{
// do some magical things
}
}
And while your first suggestion might be a BOOL consider the following exceptions:
[someObject doWhile: someOtherObject];
// yes, I know that I could just do (someOtherObject != nil), but
// I should be able to just use (someOtherObject), right?
// seeing as how ifs/fors/whiles can use just the object.
[someObject doWhile: [someOtherObject isValid]];
// since -isValid returns a BOOL, this will work, but it will only
// pass the value of -isValid at the time of calling to the while loop.
// if the value of -isValid changes, -doWhile: will have no idea of the change,
// whereas while() would.
The use of the primitive _Bool allows me to solve the former problem, however the latter problem still persists. Is there some way to evaluate the truthfulness of a type-agnostic parameter identically to how while() works?
As noted in comments, passing a block is a versatile way of getting the desired result even though simpler methods may be appropriate for the test cases where a completely dynamic evaluation isn't required.
I'm trying to pass an NSString by reference but it doesn't work.
This is the function:
+(void)fileName:(NSString *) file
{
file = #"folder_b";
}
and this is the call:
NSString *file;
[function fileName:file];
nslog(#"%#",file); // and there is nothing in the string....
What I must do to pass my string by reference?
If you want to return a value, then return a value. Pass by reference in Cocoa/iOS is largely limited to NSError**.
Given:
+(void)fileName:(NSString *) file
Then do:
+(NSString *) fileName;
And be done with it.
If you need to return more than one value at a time, that begs for a structure or, more often, a class.
In Objective-C, pass by reference smells like you are doing it wrong.
Pass by reference in Objective-C is reserved largely for returning NSError* information about a recoverable failure, where the return value of the method itself indicates whether or not the requested task succeeded or failed (you can pass NULL as the NSError** argument to allow the method to optimize away creating said error metadata).
Pass by references is also used to retrieve interior state of objects where the return value is effectively a multi-value. I.e. methods from AppKit like the following. In these cases, the pass-by-reference arguments are typically either optional or are acting as secondary return values.
They are used quite sparingly across the API. There is certainly use for pass by reference, but -- as said above -- doing so should be quite rare and rarer still in application code. In many cases -- and in some of the cases below, potentially -- a better pattern would be to create a class that can encapsulate the state and then return an instance of said class instead of pass by reference.
NSWorkspace.h:- (BOOL)getInfoForFile:(NSString *)fullPath application:(NSString **)appName type:(NSString **)type;
NSTextView.h:- (void)smartInsertForString:(NSString *)pasteString replacingRange:(NSRange)charRangeToReplace beforeString:(NSString **)beforeString afterString:(NSString **)afterString;
NSAttributedString.h:- (BOOL)readFromURL:(NSURL *)url options:(NSDictionary *)options documentAttributes:(NSDictionary **)dict;
NSNib.h:- (BOOL)instantiateWithOwner:(id)owner topLevelObjects:(NSArray **)topLevelObjects NS_AVAILABLE_MAC(10_8);
NSSpellChecker.h:- (NSRange)checkGrammarOfString:(NSString *)stringToCheck startingAt:(NSInteger)startingOffset language:(NSString *)language wrap:(BOOL)wrapFlag inSpellDocumentWithTag:(NSInteger)tag details:(NSArray **)details NS_AVAILABLE_MAC(10_5);
I believe you're looking for:
+ (void)fileName:(NSString **)file
{
*file = #"folder_b";
}
What's really done here is we're working with a pointer to a pointer to an object. Check C (yup, just plain C) guides for "pointer dereference" for further info.
(...But as has been pointed out repeatedly, in this particular example, there's no reason to pass by reference at all: just return a value.)
Passing a pointer to your object is the Objective C (and C) way of passing by reference.
I agree with 'bbum' that a perceived need to pass by reference is a signal to think about what you are doing; however, it is by no means the case that there are not legitimate reasons to pass by reference.
You should not create classes willy-nilly every time you have a function or method that needs to return more than one value. Consider why you are returning more than one value and if it makes sense to create a class for that then do so. Otherwise, just pass in pointers.
-Just my 2 cents
Try this
+(void)filename:(NSString **)file {
*file=#"folder_b";
}
and send the file as &file like:
NSString *file;
[function fileName:&file];
nslog(#"%#",file);
hope this will work.
I suspect this is because NSString is immutable. Have you tried NSMutableString?
This question already has answers here:
Sending a message to nil in Objective-C
(11 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I just started reading the Objective-C tutorials, and there is a section on "sending a message to nil":
There are several patterns in Cocoa
that take advantage of this fact. The
value returned from a message to nil
may also be valid:
What does this mean? I can't seem to follow it.
The special treatment of nil means that you can do the following:
SomeClass * someObject;
someObject = nil;
[someObject doSomething];
And you can be assured that nothing will happen.
Now, why is this important?
In Objective-C, sending a message to an object means telling that object to do something, or asking that object for some information. Some examples:
[someObject updateRecords]; // 1
x = [someObject size]; // 2
Line 1 sends someObject a message called updateRecords, and line 2 sends the same object a message called size, which is expected to return a value. These messages boil down to method calls, and the actual code that ends up being run is determined by the Objective-C runtime system, since Objective-C is a dynamically-typed language.
To determine which method to invoke, the runtime system reads information from the address of the object in question (someObject, in the examples above) to work out what class it is an instance of. Using that information, it is able to look up the appropriate method to call, and when all that has been figured out, it executes the code in the method.
If the runtime system did not treat nil as a special case, it would probably crash if you tried to execute the code shown at the top. nil is defined to be zero, so the runtime would start reading information from an address stored at location zero in memory, which is almost gauranteed to be an access violation.
nil is basically a null pointer (i.e. it is the number zero stored in a pointer).
All messages to nil are legal (they won't cause a crash), but they don't do anything.
All messages to nil return nil, or 0, or 0.0, or NO, depending on the return type.
You can send any message to nil. Nothing happens.
What exactly is it you don't understand in those docs?
The great thing about nil messaging compared to other languages like C# is that you can write code that performs multiple method calls without having to test for nil at each step.
id obj1 = [SomeClass object];
id obj2 = [obj1 doSomething];
id obj3 = [obj2 anotherMethod];
id thingICareAbout = [obj3 doSomethingElse];
If you go through several steps to get to thingICareAbout, it saves a lot of unnecessary lines of code to not have to test if obj1, obj2 and so on are nil before using them. You can just check if thingICareAbout is nil once at the end if you need to. Sometimes you don't even have to do that, if your code still works when it's nil (or 0 for primitive values).
In C# you would have had to explicitly check if each object is nil, set up exception handling around that block of code, or just hope none of the intermediate objects are ever nil.
One other thing to keep in mind (that I just learned myself!) is that 10.5 changed this behavior-- it used to be that it was only safe for integers and pointers to objects, not structs or floating point values. You might see some additional error checking when you're looking at other code because of this.
It does what you would expect: nothing.
As a Java developer who is reading Apple's Objective-C 2.0 documentation: I wonder what "sending a message to nil" means - let alone how it is actually useful. Taking an excerpt from the documentation:
There are several patterns in Cocoa
that take advantage of this fact. The
value returned from a message to nil
may also be valid:
If the method returns an object, any pointer type, any integer scalar
of size less than or equal to
sizeof(void*), a float, a double, a
long double, or a long long, then a
message sent to nil returns 0.
If the method returns a struct, as defined by the Mac OS X ABI Function
Call Guide to be returned in
registers, then a message sent to nil
returns 0.0 for every field in the
data structure. Other struct data
types will not be filled with zeros.
If the method returns anything other than the aforementioned value
types the return value of a message
sent to nil is undefined.
Has Java rendered my brain incapable of grokking the explanation above? Or is there something that I am missing that would make this as clear as glass?
I do get the idea of messages/receivers in Objective-C, I am simply confused about a receiver that happens to be nil.
Well, I think it can be described using a very contrived example. Let's say you have a method in Java which prints out all of the elements in an ArrayList:
void foo(ArrayList list)
{
for(int i = 0; i < list.size(); ++i){
System.out.println(list.get(i).toString());
}
}
Now, if you call that method like so: someObject.foo(NULL); you're going to probably get a NullPointerException when it tries to access list, in this case in the call to list.size(); Now, you'd probably never call someObject.foo(NULL) with the NULL value like that. However, you may have gotten your ArrayList from a method which returns NULL if it runs into some error generating the ArrayList like someObject.foo(otherObject.getArrayList());
Of course, you'll also have problems if you do something like this:
ArrayList list = NULL;
list.size();
Now, in Objective-C, we have the equivalent method:
- (void)foo:(NSArray*)anArray
{
int i;
for(i = 0; i < [anArray count]; ++i){
NSLog(#"%#", [[anArray objectAtIndex:i] stringValue];
}
}
Now, if we have the following code:
[someObject foo:nil];
we have the same situation in which Java will produce a NullPointerException. The nil object will be accessed first at [anArray count] However, instead of throwing a NullPointerException, Objective-C will simply return 0 in accordance with the rules above, so the loop will not run. However, if we set the loop to run a set number of times, then we're first sending a message to anArray at [anArray objectAtIndex:i]; This will also return 0, but since objectAtIndex: returns a pointer, and a pointer to 0 is nil/NULL, NSLog will be passed nil each time through the loop. (Although NSLog is a function and not a method, it prints out (null) if passed a nil NSString.
In some cases it's nicer to have a NullPointerException, since you can tell right away that something is wrong with the program, but unless you catch the exception, the program will crash. (In C, trying to dereference NULL in this way causes the program to crash.) In Objective-C, it instead just causes possibly incorrect run-time behavior. However, if you have a method that doesn't break if it returns 0/nil/NULL/a zeroed struct, then this saves you from having to check to make sure the object or parameters are nil.
A message to nil does nothing and returns nil, Nil, NULL, 0, or 0.0.
All of the other posts are correct, but maybe it's the concept that's the thing important here.
In Objective-C method calls, any object reference that can accept a selector is a valid target for that selector.
This saves a LOT of "is the target object of type X?" code - as long as the receiving object implements the selector, it makes absolutely no difference what class it is! nil is an NSObject that accepts any selector - it just doesn't do anything. This eliminates a lot of "check for nil, don't send the message if true" code as well. (The "if it accepts it, it implements it" concept is also what allows you to create protocols, which are sorta kinda like Java interfaces: a declaration that if a class implements the stated methods, then it conforms to the protocol.)
The reason for this is to eliminate monkey code that doesn't do anything except keep the compiler happy. Yes, you get the overhead of one more method call, but you save programmer time, which is a far more expensive resource than CPU time. In addition, you're eliminating more code and more conditional complexity from your application.
Clarifying for downvoters: you may think this is not a good way to go, but it's how the language is implemented, and it's the recommended programming idiom in Objective-C (see the Stanford iPhone programming lectures).
What it means is that the runtime doesn't produce an error when objc_msgSend is called on the nil pointer; instead it returns some (often useful) value. Messages that might have a side effect do nothing.
It's useful because most of the default values are more appropriate than an error. For example:
[someNullNSArrayReference count] => 0
I.e., nil appears to be the empty array. Hiding a nil NSView reference does nothing. Handy, eh?
In the quotation from the documentation, there are two separate concepts -- perhaps it might be better if the documentation made that more clear:
There are several patterns in Cocoa that take advantage of this fact.
The value returned from a message to nil may also be valid:
The former is probably more relevant here: typically being able to send messages to nil makes code more straightforward -- you don't have to check for null values everywhere. The canonical example is probably the accessor method:
- (void)setValue:(MyClass *)newValue {
if (value != newValue) {
[value release];
value = [newValue retain];
}
}
If sending messages to nil were not valid, this method would be more complex -- you'd have to have two additional checks to ensure value and newValue are not nil before sending them messages.
The latter point (that values returned from a message to nil are also typically valid), though, adds a multiplier effect to the former. For example:
if ([myArray count] > 0) {
// do something...
}
This code again doesn't require a check for nil values, and flows naturally...
All this said, the additional flexibility that being able to send messages to nil does come at some cost. There is the possibility that you will at some stage write code that fails in a peculiar way because you didn't take into account the possibility that a value might be nil.
From Greg Parker's site:
If running LLVM Compiler 3.0 (Xcode 4.2) or later
Messages to nil with return type | return
Integers up to 64 bits | 0
Floating-point up to long double | 0.0
Pointers | nil
Structs | {0}
Any _Complex type | {0, 0}
It means often not having to check for nil objects everywhere for safety - particularly:
[someVariable release];
or, as noted, various count and length methods all return 0 when you've got a nil value, so you do not have to add extra checks for nil all over:
if ( [myString length] > 0 )
or this:
return [myArray count]; // say for number of rows in a table
Don't think about "the receiver being nil"; I agree, that is pretty weird. If you're sending a message to nil, there is no receiver. You're just sending a message to nothing.
How to deal with that is a philosophical difference between Java and Objective-C: in Java, that's an error; in Objective-C, it is a no-op.
ObjC messages which are sent to nil and whose return values have size larger than sizeof(void*) produce undefined values on PowerPC processors. In addition to that, these messages cause undefined values to be returned in fields of structs whose size is larger than 8 bytes on Intel processors as well. Vincent Gable has described this nicely in his blog post
I don't think any of the other answers have mentioned this clearly: if you're used to Java, you should keep in mind that while Objective-C on Mac OS X has exception handling support, it's an optional language feature that can be turned on/off with a compiler flag. My guess is that this design of "sending messages to nil is safe" predates the inclusion of exception handling support in the language and was done with a similar goal in mind: methods can return nil to indicate errors, and since sending a message to nil usually returns nil in turn, this allows the error indication to propagate through your code so you don't have to check for it at every single message. You only have to check for it at points where it matters. I personally think exception propagation&handling is a better way to address this goal, but not everyone may agree with that. (On the other hand, I for example don't like Java's requirement on you having to declare what exceptions a method may throw, which often forces you to syntactically propagate exception declarations throughout your code; but that's another discussion.)
I've posted a similar, but longer, answer to the related question "Is asserting that every object creation succeeded necessary in Objective C?" if you want more details.
C represents nothing as 0 for primitive values, and NULL for pointers (which is equivalent to 0 in a pointer context).
Objective-C builds on C's representation of nothing by adding nil. nil is an object pointer to nothing. Although semantically distinct from NULL, they are technically equivalent to one another.
Newly-alloc'd NSObjects start life with their contents set to 0. This means that all pointers that object has to other objects begin as nil, so it's unnecessary to, for instance, set self.(association) = nil in init methods.
The most notable behavior of nil, though, is that it can have messages sent to it.
In other languages, like C++ (or Java), this would crash your program, but in Objective-C, invoking a method on nil returns a zero value. This greatly simplifies expressions, as it obviates the need to check for nil before doing anything:
// For example, this expression...
if (name != nil && [name isEqualToString:#"Steve"]) { ... }
// ...can be simplified to:
if ([name isEqualToString:#"Steve"]) { ... }
Being aware of how nil works in Objective-C allows this convenience to be a feature, and not a lurking bug in your application. Make sure to guard against cases where nil values are unwanted, either by checking and returning early to fail silently, or adding a NSParameterAssert to throw an exception.
Source:
http://nshipster.com/nil/
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/objectivec/Chapters/ocObjectsClasses.html (Sending Message to nil).