This code is from the Sams Teach Yourself Swift book, Chapter 21. The Song.h file contains the following code:
//Song.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface Song : NSObject;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *title;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *artist;
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSNumber *rating;
- (instancetype)initWithTitle:(NSString *)title artist:(NSString *)artist rating:(NSNumber *)number;
#end
To my understanding, the - (instancetype) creates an instance method, returning an instancetype. The two (NSString *)s declare that the parameter will be an NSString. I assume that the word title immediately following the first (NSString *) is the parameter name, same with the artist following the (NSString *). What is the initWithTitle: and the artist:?
You pretty much have it correct.
An Obj-C instance method begins with a hyphen, "-" followed by the return type in parentheses. A Class method, begins with a plus "+" but is otherwise the same.
That's followed by the rest of the method signature, which can include multiple parameters. Each parameter is preceded by a colon ":", then the required type for the argument/parameter in parentheses, e.g. NSString *, which is followed finally an internal name for the value that will be passed in. You read the entire method name by stating each parameter...
initWithTitle:artist:rating
Read as a sentence, you're saying:
"Inititialize a Song instance with a title (that's an NSString*), an artist (also an NSString*), and a rating (this requires an NSNumber *)"
-(returnType)firstPartofMethodNameThatTakestheArgument:(NSString *)argument1 andArgumentTwo:(NSString *)argument2
The instanceType is a relatively new alternative for id which meant the return type could effectively be anything. This instead ensures that it can only be an instance of the type containing the method, in this case a Song.
As for the duplicate argument names... The first part "artist: is the external name that appears when you call the method (if you use code completion for example, that's what shows up). The part after the argument's type (NSString *)artist is the internal name that will be used inside the method implementation. Those can be the same, but they don't have to be.
Swift has a similar construction, but with more options where you can choose to write different internal and external parameter names, or just use 1 (or use in-out parameters whose values chance, use variadic parameters that can be an arbitrary number of elements, etc - look into Swift Functions for more details on those topics).
func initWith(externalTitle internalTitle:String, #artist:String, #rating:Int) -> Song
//When calling, you'd see "externalTitle:artist:rating"
//but in the method implementation you'd use "internalTitle" instead.
instancetype is a replacement for the id (and in fact the compiler coverts id to instancetype for init methods at compile time) or specific type class usually returned by init methods and can't be used anywhere else. It allows the compiler to check that assignments from that init method are the appropriate type while still allowing subclasses to inherit initializers. So this init method most likely takes the initial values and assigns them to the properties.
It is the method's signature. In other words ..this is how the method is named.
Btw. "instancetype" is a compiler keyword, that represents the instance's type, so actually the method will return a Song instance.
- initWithTitle:artist:rating: is the method's name, or in Objective-C terms, selector. title, artist and rating are parameter names.
As for - (instancetype), the minus sign - means it's an instance method (class methods begin with a plus sign +), while instancetype is a return type of a method. It's just a keyword that tells the compiler this method will always return an object of type of class on which it was called. If you want to know more about it, I suggest reading the NSHipster post about instancetype.
You said:
To my understanding, the - (instancetype) creates an instance method, returning an instancetype.
The - designates an instance method. The instancetype is a special keyword designating that it returns an instance of the class, a Song instance in this case.
The two (NSString *)s declare that the parameter will be an NSString.
Yes, the two (NSString *) references indicate that the first two parameters are string values. The following (NSNumber *) indicates that the third parameter is a number object.
I assume that the word title immediately following the first (NSString *) is the parameter name, same with the artist following the (NSString *). What is the initWithTitle: and the artist:?
The word immediately following the (NSString *) is the name of the parameter used within the implementation of that method.
Consider the declaration:
- (instancetype)initWithTitle:(NSString *)title artist:(NSString *)artist rating:(NSNumber *)number;
This declares a method called initWithTitle:artist:rating:, that takes three parameters, a title, artist, and rating. So if you wanted to create a song called "Ticket to Ride" by the "Beatles" and a rating of 5, you would call this method with something like:
Song *song = [[Song alloc] initWithTitle:#"Ticket to Ride" artist:#"Beatles" rating:#5];
Related
It seems that -valueForKey: and -valueForKeyPath: work with arbitrary methods, not only with properties. This seems very convenient:
I first stumbled upon it in Interface Builder, and then made some experiments:
// Thing.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface Thing : NSObject
- (BOOL) alwaysYES;
- (BOOL) alwaysNO;
#end
// Thing.m
#import "Thing.h"
#implementation Thing
- (BOOL) alwaysYES
{
return YES;
}
- (BOOL) alwaysNO
{
return NO;
}
#end
I can call these methods via -valueForKey: and -valueForKeyPath: despite the fact that they are normal methods and no properties:
Thing *aThing = [[Thing alloc] init];
id result;
result = [aThing valueForKey:#"alwaysYES"];
NSLog(#"result is: %#", result);
result = [aThing valueForKeyPath:#"alwaysNO"];
NSLog(#"result is: %#", result);
Compiles, runs and gives the correct results. Is this documented anywhere? Can I safely use it? How can i understand it?
Cocoa's key-value coding (KVC) system is older than support for explicit properties (declared with #property) in Objective-C, so KVC is defined in terms of methods, not properties.
“Default Search Pattern for valueForKey:” in the Key-Value Coding Programming Guide spells out how valueForKey: decides what to do. It starts by looking for (amongst other things) a method whose name is exactly the key you passed to valueForKey:. Here is the full search pattern, quoted from the documentation:
Searches the class of the receiver for an accessor method whose name matches the pattern get<Key>, <key>, or is<Key>, in that order. If such a method is found it is invoked. If the type of the method's result is an object pointer type the result is simply returned. If the type of the result is one of the scalar types supported by NSNumber conversion is done and an NSNumber is returned. Otherwise, conversion is done and an NSValue is returned. Results of arbitrary types are converted to NSValue objects, not just NSPoint, NSRange, NSRect, and NSSize types).
Otherwise (no simple accessor method is found), searches the class of the receiver for methods whose names match the patterns countOf<Key> and objectIn<Key>AtIndex: (corresponding to the primitive methods defined by the NSArray class) and <key>AtIndexes: (corresponding to the NSArray method objectsAtIndexes:).
If the countOf<Key> method and at least one of the other two possible methods are found, a collection proxy object that responds to all NSArray methods is returned. Each NSArray message sent to the collection proxy object will result in some combination of countOf<Key>, objectIn<Key>AtIndex:, and <key>AtIndexes: messages being sent to the original receiver of valueForKey:. If the class of the receiver also implements an optional method whose name matches the pattern get<Key>:range: that method will be used when appropriate for best performance.
Otherwise (no simple accessor method or set of array access methods is found), searches the class of the receiver for a threesome of methods whose names match the patterns countOf<Key>, enumeratorOf<Key>, and memberOf<Key>: (corresponding to the primitive methods defined by the NSSet class).
If all three methods are found, a collection proxy object that responds to all NSSet methods is returned. Each NSSet message sent to the collection proxy object will result in some combination of countOf<Key>, enumeratorOf<Key>, and memberOf<Key>: messages being sent to the original receiver of valueForKey:.
Otherwise (no simple accessor method or set of collection access methods is found), if the receiver's class method accessInstanceVariablesDirectly returns YES, the class of the receiver is searched for an instance variable whose name matches the pattern _<key>, _is<Key>, <key>, or is<Key>, in that order. If such an instance variable is found, the value of the instance variable in the receiver is returned. If the type of the result is one of the scalar types supported by NSNumber conversion is done and an NSNumber is returned. Otherwise, conversion is done and an NSValue is returned. Results of arbitrary types are converted to NSValue objects, not just NSPoint, NSRange, NSRect, and NSSize types.
If none of the above situations occurs, returns a result the default implementation invokes valueForUndefinedKey:.
This is parallel to the fact that you can call these methods using property syntax:
BOOL ok = aThing.alwaysYES
In that case and in your case, exactly the same thing happens: the first thing the runtime tries is to treat this as a getter method. What you've written is a getter method.
As for your question "can I safely use it", safely yes, but what you're doing is kind of silly, since you know (and have declared) that these methods exist. KVC is about probing to see whether methods exist. If you have a reason to specify one of these methods by string name, there are better ways to call it than using KVC.
Properties are nothing special at runtime; they generate a getter and setter (if not readonly) which conforms to KVC; for example:
#property NSString *aString;
will generate:
- (NSString)aString {
...
}
- (void)setAString(NSString *string) {
...
}
just as if you had declared those methods in the header (which itself is optional).
See the Key Value Coding Fundamentals documentation.
I recently picked up the BigNerdRanch book on Cocoa for Mac OSX and am looking for a good explanation around the use of asterisks * and underscores _ that seem to be inconsistently used throughout the language. Some examples:
These appear to be functionally equivalent:
NSString* myString;
NSString *myString;
Sometimes new variables get an underscore, while others dont:
NSString _myString;
NSString myString;
And sometimes it gets all crazy:
NSString *myString;
NSString *_myString;
I've also seen variations with asterisks in methods:
- (void)speechSynthesizer:(NSSpeechSynthesizer *)sender
willSpeakWord:(NSRange)characterRange
ofString:(NSString *)string;
So what is the functional use of the asterisk or the underscore, when should you use (or not use) either, and when should they be used in combination?
The * indicate a pointer, which all Objective-C objects are. (You pass around pointers to these objects in memory). At a basic level these are normal C pointers. If I remember correctly You could access some data in an Objective-C object by going object->data, just like you do with pointers to C structs.
The _ is a Cocoa (and some other languages) convention, meaning "a piece of data that should be considered private to this object".
Objective-C has a #private declaration, but it's also a relatively new addition to the language - if your code is more than 2 or 3 years old (or targeting much older versions of OS X) it might not use #private
Because of this initial lacking of language infrastructure, the _ is (often) used by the Cocoa community to mark "Hey, you probably shouldn't set or read this directly, please".
So:
When dealing with Objective-C classes you always need the * to follow the class name (like NSString), because they are always pointers. I'm confused about your NSString somestring line in your code - either that'll generate a complier warning or will crash when you try to use it
The _ indicates private data. You would do something like NSString* _name in a #interface section of your Objective-C class. You would use _name by itself if you were calling or operating on that data in a method in your class.
So say you created a Student class:
// Student.h
#interface Student : NSObject {
NSString* _name;
}
- (NSString*) name_as_caps;
#end
// Student.m
#implementation Student
- (NSString*) name_as_caps {
return [_name uppercase];
}
Here we declare a class with a "private" data member: _name. Our Student class needs to return this capitalized for some reason, so we created a method to do that, where we use _name and call the uppercase method on it.
We needed to refer to the type (or class name) or _name a few times here: once, to declare the variable. For name_as_caps we needed to say: this method returns a pointer to an NSString object, thus we used NSString *.
As an addendum to Ryan's answer, when you see something like
-(void)speechSynthesizer:(NSSpeechSynthesizer *)sender willSpeakWord:(NSRange)character
RangeofString:(NSString *)string;
the things like (NSSpeechSynthesizer *)sender just state the type of the argument - in this case NSSpeechSynthesizer*
I'm currently learning myself objective-c and iOS programming and found myself stuck with non-working code due to this subtle error for an hour.
Consider the following code:
#property (strong, nonatomic) NSString *name;
- (NSString *):name { return #"Some name"; }
At first glance (and for anyone new) this looks like an overridden getter for the name property. But theres a very subtle : that shouldn't be there. You get no warning/error from the compiler/parser/runtime here, so my question is what does this actually end up as?
I tried to figure a way of calling this method once I saw the error, but didn't succeed in my few attempts.
The method signature - (NSString *):name breaks down to the following:
- It is an instance method (versus a class method with a +).
(NSString *) It returns a string.
: If you were to speak the name of this method, it would simply be called "colon". : tells the compiler that your method accepts one parameter as well.
name There is a parameter called name.
When you don't specify a type, the compiler assumes you meant id, so this method actually fleshes out to be - (NSString *):(id)hello
A valid call to this method would be: [self :#"hello"].
You can do really weird things because : is a valid name for a method, and the compiler assumes id. You could, if you really wanted to, have a method called - :::. The compiler would assume you meant - (id):(id):(id):(id), a method that returns an object of type id and takes three parameters of type id. You'd call it like so: [self :#"hello" :anObject :myObject];
A method declare like the one you posted is rare (and poor style, imo). Objective-C is supposed to be verbose. Methods break down like this:
First character: Either - or +. - means it is an instance method, + means it is a class method.
Value in parentheses: The return type of the method. In your example, the method returns an (NSString *).
The rest (before the curly braces) is the method name along with any parameters they take. You could have a name with no parameters, in which case the method name would not have a : in it. Such as - (void) reload; This would be a method that doesn't return a value and takes no parameters.
If your method takes parameters, they will be mixed into the method name and usually will declare the type (unlike your example). Such as - (NSString *) reverseString:(NSString *) stringToReverse; In this example your method name would be reverseString: it takes one parameter, an NSString* that will be called stringToReverse in the method definition.
Usually, if you see a : with no type it will be a case like - (float) addThreeValues::: This method returns a float and takes 3 parameters. This would be an appropriate definition because the three values don't matter what order they are provided because we are just adding them.
A class can be extended in Objective C using a category such as:
#interface NSString (CategoryName)
-(NSString *)myFabulousAddition; // a fabulous additional method
#end
/////////////////////////////
#implementation NSString (CategoryName)
-(NSString *)myFabulousAddition {
// do something fabulous...
}
#end
In this small example, I would be adding the method myFabulousAddition to NSString. I could then call it by [anNSString myFabulousAddition] just as if it were part of the NSString set of methods. Great and useful.
In the Apple documents regarding Categories, the docs state:
There’s no limit to the number of
categories that you can add to a
class, but each category name must be
different, and each should declare and
define a different set of methods.
What if you have something like this:
#interface NSString (CategoryName)
-(NSString *)myFabulousAddition; // a fabulous additional method
#end
#interface NSString (ANOTHERCategoryName)
-(NSString *)myFabulousAddition; // a DIFFERENT fabulous additional method
// BUT with same name as the other category
#end
/////////////////////////////
#implementation NSString (CategoryName)
-(NSString *)myFabulousAddition {
// do something fabulous...
}
#end
#implementation NSString (ANOTHERCategoryName)
-(NSString *)myFabulousAddition {
// do something equally fabulous, but DIFFERENT...
}
#end
The lack of a name in the parenthesis indicates that the form is an extension to the class, like so:
#interface MyObject () // No name -- an extension vs category to MyObject
- (void)setNumber:(NSNumber *)newNumber;
#end
Does the category name have any meaning to the compiler or linker? Is the category name part of the method signature in anyway or is it part of a primitive namespace? If the category name is meaningless, how do you know if you are about to stomp on another method and get undefined behavior?
The way to avoid stomping on methods is to prefix your category method names, like this:
#interface NSString (MyCompanyCategoryName)
- (NSString *)MYCO_fabulousAddition;
#end
If you get a collision of method names from different categories, then which one 'wins' at run time is completely undefined.
The name of a category is almost entirely useless, with the exception being that the nameless category (i.e. ()) is reserved for class extensions. Methods from class extensions are supposed to be implemented in the class' main #implementation.
The category name doesn't mean anything special, it's just an identifier. Unless the linker (or runtime loader) decides to give you a warning, there is no way to tell that multiple categories are defining the same method.
The behavior is (largely) unpredictable - one of the categories will win out, but you can't tell which one. Also, I think it's well possible you will start out with one implementation and end up with another one (if the second category is loaded after the first).
It certainly acts as an identifier, from the programmer's point of view. In the compiler point of view category methods are simply added as an extension of the class ( from which it is extending), regardless of the name.
And yes you can add categories of the same class with the same identifiers, even with same functions. But you definitely can't override any function because categories are just part of the class once you define them ( Just like you can't override a function of a class from within that class ).
As they are being added at runtime, they don't raise any error and only at runtime compiler selects the function, which is totally unpredictable.
i believe that they don't have any meaning. You don't really use them in your code ... Since they are categories and ... the semantic of a category ... is just to categorize something, i think this is somewhat logical ...
I would say they just simply gather the methods ...
On the other hand your question is very valid ... You DON'T KNOW if you override a method. If you are in the same project then the compiler issues a warning (or an error ? i don't remember), however if you are overriding a method from a library, then .. you are out of luck ...
take example:
-(void)setName:(NSString *)name age:(int)age;
How would you call this method (in other words, the method's name is setName but what is the "age" parameter doing in there) and what do the types in parentheses mean? Is it just a way to tell the compiler what types are being returned?
[ myObject setName: #"Adam" age:18 ];
The age parameter is the second parameter in the method signature.
The types in parentheses are the expected types for the argument. e.g. name is expecting only an NSString and age is expecting only an int.
The - means that the method is an instance method, not a class method, which is denoted using a + instead.
The type in parentheses right after the - is the return type.
This is a great site for learning the basics of Objective-C: CocoaDevCentral
To answer, one would need a bit more information, but I'll be guessing this is from some sort of class named aClass, and you have an instance of aClass, named instance.
-(void)setName:(NSString *)name age:(int)age;
means you have a method, named setName:age:, that needs two arguments, one NSString, one int, and it returns a void. As it has a - as it's first character, it is an instance method.
[instance setName:#"James Hargrove" age:21];
Would call setName:age: on the instance.
(The instance should be created using, say,
aClass *instance = [[aClass alloc] init];
which would create an instance of aClass named instance, and initialize it.
This is the standard Objective-C method syntax. This could be read as:
A method with no return value (void) that
sets the name of the object (an NSString * parameter)
and the age (and integer
parameter).
Dissecting the method:
"-" The hyphen states that this is an instance method.
(void) The return type is void - or
no return type expected
setName:(NSString *) The first
parameter to be passed is the "name"
and is an NSString *.
age:(int)age The second parameter
to be passed is the "age" and is
an int.
In reality, the method syntax is actually quite self-documenting once understood (and quite foreign if you're used to more tradition C/C++ or Java syntax).
The actual example of the call of this method would be:
[someObject setName:#"Rich" age:101];
The method name is actually this:
setName:age:
You call it like this:
[someObject setName:#"Alice" age:20];
setName:age: is also the unique signature of that method, and with that signature you can call that method on any object you wish. For example:
NSArray* objects = ...
SEL mySelector = #selector(setName:age:);
for (id object in objects)
{
if ([object respondsToSelector:mySelector])
{
[object setName:#"Alice" age:20];
}
}
what do the types in parentheses mean? Is it just a way to tell the compiler what types are being returned?
Yes, those are "C casts". If everything was an object you wouldn't need those, but because you can pass and return plain old C types to and from your methods, the compiler needs to know the types of your parameters and return values.
You'd call this method like so:
[classInstance setName:#"name" age:123];
The first instance of "age:" indicates that the method receives another parameter, called "age" when used in the implementation of the method.
The types in parentheses indicate the types of data that are expected for each parameter, with the exception of the first one, "void", which means that this method returns nothing.
So, you would call this method as follows.
Say it is a method of an object named foo (of class Foo). Then you would call:
[foo setName:someName age:someAge].
If it were a static method, it would be preceded by a + instead of a minus as follows:
+(void)setName:(NSString *)name age:(int)age;
Then you would call
[Foo setName:someName age:someAge] //use the classname instead of the object name
The types are indeed there for type-checking by the compiler. You'll get warnings if you pass the wrong sort of data, and you will get warnings if your header doesn't match your implementation.
You can actually write Obj-C functions in a couple of different styles though, omitting some of this stuff. You can even write straight up C-style.