Most of the examples I found on the net write this:
if(x != nil)
// ...
Is there any problems with this?
if(x)
// ...
I tried both in a simple program and couldn't found any difference.
In Objective-C, nil is defined as a value called __DARWIN_NULL, which essentially evaluates to 0 or false in if-statements. Therefore, writing
if (x == nil) is the same as writing if (!x) and writing if (x != nil) is equal to if (x) (since comparing to false creates a negation, and comparing to true keeps the condition the same).
You can write your code either way, and it really depends on which you think is more readable. I find if (x) to make more sense, but it depends on your style.
It's like comparing if (someCondition == true) versus if (someCondition).
It all depends on you, and who's going to be reading the code.
Edit: As Yuji correctly mentions, since Objective-C is a superset of C, any condition that evaluates to a value other than 0 is considered to be true, and therefore, if someCondition in the example above were to evaluate to an integer value of, say, -1, comparing it to true would result in false, and the if-statement would not be evaluated. Something to be aware of.
Both
if (x != nil)
and
if ( x )
are equivalent, so pick the variant that in your opinion makes your code more readable for you (and others who will read and support your code)
Both are the same and this is a style question and it boils down to whether you prefer:
if (something) { ... }
versus
if (something != nothing) { ... }
I have always found #1 more clear but #2 is used extensively in documentation and hence the field so it is better to both know both forms and adapt to what a project uses and be stylistically consistent.
The best and safe way to check nil is
Make a common method, and add all these null :
+ (NSString *)trimWhiteSpaceAndNewLine:(NSString *)string {
NSString *stringSource = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#",string];
if ([stringSource isEqualToString:#"(null)"]) {
stringSource = #"";
return stringSource;
}
if ([stringSource isEqualToString:#"<null>"]) {
stringSource = #"";
return stringSource;
}
if ([stringSource isEqualToString:#"<nil>"]) {
stringSource = #"";
return stringSource;
}
if ([stringSource isKindOfClass:[NSNull class]]) {
stringSource = #"";
return stringSource;
}
if ([stringSource isEqualToString:#""]) {
stringSource = #"";
return stringSource;
}
if (stringSource == nil) {
stringSource = #"";
return stringSource;
}
NSString *stringFinal = [stringSource stringByTrimmingCharactersInSet:[NSCharacterSet whitespaceAndNewlineCharacterSet]];
return stringFinal;
}
And check
NSString *strUuid = [Common trimWhiteSpaceAndNewLine:[dict valueForKeyPath:#"detail.uuid"]];
if (![strUuid isEqualToString:#""]) {
// do your stuff
}
Related
How do I refactor similar methods for the following (Objective C)?
- (void)insertNewSong:(Song *)newSong forArtist:(Artist *)artist {
NSMutableArray *newSongList = [[artist songs] mutableCopy];
BOOL hasInserted = NO;
for (int i = 0; i < [[artist songs] count]; i++) {
Song *existingSong = [[artist songs] objectAtIndex:i];
if ([[newSong title] caseInsensitiveCompare:[existingSong title]] == NSOrderedAscending) {
[newSongList insertObject:newSong atIndex:i];
hasInserted = YES;
break;
}
}
if (hasInserted == NO) {
[newSongList addObject:newSong];
}
artist.songs = newSongList;
}
- (void)insertNewArtistToSongList:(Artist *)newArtist {
BOOL hasInserted = NO;
for (int i = 0; i < [_artists count]; i++) {
Artist *existingArtist = [_artists objectAtIndex:i];
if ([[newArtist name] caseInsensitiveCompare:[existingArtist name]] == NSOrderedAscending) {
[_artists insertObject:newArtist atIndex:i];
hasInserted = YES;
break;
}
}
if (hasInserted == NO) {
[_artists addObject:newArtist];
}
}
For the insertNewSong method, a NSMutableArray [artist songs] containing each Song object is used.
For the insertNewArtist method, a NSMutableArray instance variable _artists containing each Artist Object is used.
Both methods insert an object into an NSMutableArray by comparing the text property of the input object against the text property found within the arrays.
Currently the above methods contain some duplication but is easy to understand (in my case). I was thinking whether there might be a way of simplifying it into a more general method, and does not hurt readability?
There is no general rule, but here are some general rules:
Sometimes it makes sense to combine code like this, sometimes not. Lots of pluses/minuses.
Sometimes it's best to abstract PART of the operation, and leave the other part custom.
Generally, if you have a lot of "if thingA then do this, else that" logic, you've done it wrong (or should not do it at all).
It's best when you can write a single routine and just pass in different parameters (that aren't simply Boolean switches) to differentiate the multiple cases.
It's hard.
And, as a general rule, I don't try too hard to abstract until I have the third instance of nearly the same logic.
(Generally speaking.)
I have the following code:
NSString *content = [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] stringForKey:#"mykey"];
NSLog(#"string is %#",content);
if ([content stringIsEmpty]){
NSLog(#"empty string");
}else{
NSLog(#"string is not empty");
}
stringIsEmpty is class category on NSString:
- (BOOL ) stringIsEmpty {
if ((NSNull *) self == [NSNull null]) {
return YES;
}
if (self == nil) {
return YES;
} else if ([self length] == 0) {
return YES;
}
return NO;
}
The output is:
string is (null)
string is not empty
How could it be null and not empty at the same time?
What happens is that:
[content stringIsEmpty:YES]
will return false (NO), when content is nil. So your code will take the
NSLog(#"string is not empty");
branch. This would be better:
if (content && [content stringIsEmpty:YES]){
...
A better way of doing this would be reversing the semantics of the method:
if ([content stringIsNotEmpty]) {
this would work finely because when content is nil it would return NO, when it is not nil, it would execute your method.
EDIT:
In Objective-C, sending a message to nil is legal and by definition will evaluate to nil. Google for "objective c sending message to nil".
In another language (C++), your code would crash (actually undefined behaviour, but to make things simple).
I use a small function to test for emptiness. It works on more than just strings:
static inline BOOL isEmpty(id thing) {
return thing == nil
|| ([thing respondsToSelector:#selector(length)]
&& [(NSData *)thing length] == 0)
|| ([thing respondsToSelector:#selector(count)]
&& [(NSArray *)thing count] == 0);
}
I usually import it in my pch file - you can see it along with attribution: https://gist.github.com/325926
As #sergio has already pointed out - when your string is nil you can't send it messages that test it for nil-ness - as sending messages to nil will do nothing for void methods, and return nil where the method returns something.
also
you are calling your method with a parameter
if ([content stringIsEmpty:YES])
but your method declaration doesn't take one:
- (BOOL ) stringIsEmpty {
What's that all about?
You have to check for the 'content == nil' case outside of the method.
If you want to be able to call just one method, change the method to something that tests for a positive, such as "stringHasContent", returning YES if self.length > 0.
I was writing a small Category on NSString, and I wanted to know if this method is accurately handles all potential use cases:
Update: to clarify -- I wanted to make sure I'm not missing some oddball case involving character encodings, etc..
#implementation NSString (Helpers)
+(BOOL)stringIsNilOrEmpty:(NSString*)aString {
if (!aString)
return YES;
return [aString isEqualToString:#""];
}
#end
Sample usage:
-(void) sampleUsage {
NSString *emptyString = #"";
NSString *nilString = nil;
NSAssert([NSString stringIsNilOrEmpty:nilString] == YES, #"String is nil/empty");
NSAssert([NSString stringIsNilOrEmpty:emptyString] == YES, #"String is nil/empty");
}
#end
I only use the next conditional and do not even need a category:
if (!aString.length)
{
...
}
Using Objective-C theory, a message to NIL will return nil or zero, so basically you do not have to test for nil.
You can simplify the code by removing conditional:
+(BOOL)stringIsNilOrEmpty:(NSString*)aString {
return !(aString && aString.length);
}
#dasblinkenlight's answer is fine, but a much more readable conditional check I would use is:
NSString *string = ...; // define the string
if ([string length] == 0) {
// Do stuff with the string
} else {
// The string is empty or nil here
}
Very concise and does not require a separate convenience function definition. It's easy enough to remember.
EDIT: #Michael G. Emmons posted this as the last comment to that answer... credit to him but I'm listing this as an answer in its own right.
Some examples of this sort of "is not empty or blank" tests as a category on NSString.
// Please note that in general I advocate using a prefix on category methods
// to avoid category collisions. I've not done this here for clarity.
// The #interface is also excluded from this example for brevity.
#implementation NSString (MyAdditions)
- (BOOL)isNotEmpty
{
return [self length] != 0;
}
- (BOOL)isNotBlank
{
if ([self isNotEmpty])
{
NSCharacterSet *nonWhitespaceSet = [[NSCharacterSet whitespaceAndNewlineCharacterSet] invertedSet];
NSRange range = [self rangeOfCharactersFromSet:nonWhitespaceSet];
return range.location != NSNotFound;
}
return NO;
}
#end
Simply Check your string length
> if (!yourString.length){
> //your code } a
message to NIL will return nil or 0, so no need to test for nil :).
Happy coding ...
Make sure to check for spaces, trim white spaces before calculating length.
+(BOOL)stringIsNilOrEmpty:(NSString*)aString {
return !aString || [[aString stringByTrimmingCharactersInSet:
[NSCharacterSet whitespaceCharacterSet]] length] == 0;
}
How can I check if an NSString contains another substring, at which point it will return a Boolean Value.
This is what I'm thinking of:
If myString.contains("string") then
{
//Stuff Happens
}
But, from the research I've done, it seems as if Obj-C has no function for this. This Wikipedia article gives numerous string functions, their differences, and all in different languages, but I see no Obj-C support for any Contain Function.
Does anyone know of a simple-to-use function like the once above (which is similar to the C# and VB.NET function)?
Would a "Find" Function work? If so, how?
If this is not supported in Obj-C, is there a workaround I can use?
Any help is very appreciated.
if ([myString rangeOfString:#"string"].location != NSNotFound)
{
// Stuff happens
}
NSString *someString = #"Time for an egg hunt";
if ( [someString rangeOfString:#"egg" options:NSCaseInsensitiveSearch].location != NSNotFound ) {
NSLog( #"Found it!" );
}
If you want to be case insensitive.
NSRange range = [string rangeOfString:#"string" options:NSCaseInsensitiveSearch];
if (range.location != NSNotFound)
{
return range.location;
}
else
{
return nil;
}
Documentation
Create a NSString category, and put that in...
Code :
- (BOOL)contains:(NSString *)str
{
NSRange aRange = [self rangeOfString:str];
return (aRange.location!=NSNotFound);
}
Usage :
NSString* testStr = #"This is my string";
if ([testStr contains:#"is"])
{
// do something
}
if([string rangeOfString:substring].length > 0)
...
I have a simple program that I'm testing a printer class in.
-(void) setInkType {
NSMutableString *theInkType;
InkType typeOfInk;
char inkFromInput[50];
NSLog(#"What type of ink are you using?");
NSLog(#"Options are photoInk, lazerJet, regularInk");
fgets(inkFromInput,50,stdin);
theInkType = [[NSMutableString alloc] initWithUTF8String:inkFromInput];
NSLog(#"%#",theInkType);
if([theInkType compare: #"photoInk"]==true) {
typeOfInk.photoInk = 564;
NSLog(#"Your using a photo ink of type %d",typeOfInk.photoInk);
inkType.photoInk = typeOfInk.photoInk;
}
else { if ([theInkType compare: #"lazerJet"] == true) {
typeOfInk.lazerJet = 94;
NSLog(#"Your using a lazer toner of type %d",typeOfInk.lazerJet);
inkType.lazerJet = typeOfInk.lazerJet;
}
else { if ([theInkType compare: #"regularInk"] == true) {
typeOfInk.regularInk = 910;
NSLog(#"Your using a regular ink of type %d",typeOfInk.regularInk);
inkType.regularInk = typeOfInk.regularInk;
}
}
}
}
When I run this I can enter in "photoInk" and "lazerInk" and I get a proper output. Why is it when I type "regularInk" I get a bad output?
I'm thinking it could be my {}'s but I'm not quite sure. I've been scratching my head for a few hours at this.
If there is anymore Cocoa flavoring I can do to make this look smoother let me know too please.
-compare: doesn't return a boolean true/false value, it returns an NSComparisonResult, which is either NSOrderedAscending, NSOrderedSame, or NSOrderedDescending.
So you could do this:
if ([theInkType compare: #"photoInk"] == NSOrderedSame)
But really, the -isEqual: method is closer to your true intention.
if ([theInkType isEqual: #"photoInk"])
Also: you're doing your else clauses wrong. Not this:
if (x) {
...
}
else { if (y) {
...
} }
But this:
if (x) {
...
} else if (y) {
...
}
I think this should work for you. This is my answer which I have taken from the link:
Comparing text in UITextView?
SOLUTION-1: I have modified it here a bit to make it more easier for your case:
Let us assume String1 is one NSString.
//Though this is a case sensitive comparison of string
BOOL boolVal = [String1 isEqualToString:#"My Default Text"];
//Here is how you can do case insensitive comparison of string:
NSComparisonResult boolVal = [String1 compare:#"My Default Text" options:NSCaseInsensitiveSearch];
if(boolVal == NSOrderedSame)
{
NSLog(#"Strings are same");
}
else
{
NSLog(#"Strings are Different");
}
Here if boolVal is NSOrderedSame then you can say that strings are same else they are different.
SOLUTION-2: Also you don't find this easy, you can refer to Macmade's answer under the same link.
Hope this helps you.
Hope this helps you.