This question already has answers here:
Objective-C and Pointers
(3 answers)
why most of the objects we create in iphone are pointers
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am new to Objective-C and come from a Java background. I have just gone over casting in Objective-C but the book I am using failed to explain the use of the '*'/pointer when casting. Here is the example they gave me:
myFraction = (Fraction *) fraction;
Aren't pointers for specific objects so they have their own unique memory location? So then why must I use a pointer when simply referencing a class? In this case, Fraction.
Thanks I hope this makes sense and I know this is a simple question that I should know and understand but I could find nothing explaining this.
The * symbol has multiple meanings (beside multiplication :):
Dereference (follow) pointers. This code follows pointer stored in pointerToInt and then assigns a value to it.
(*pointerToInt) = 5;
Declares a pointer type. When you write int * it means “reference to an integer”.
int x = 5;
int * xPtr = &x
Now, objects are a kind of structures, but we only manipulate with them via pointers. Never directly. This basically means, that 99% of time when you see * (and it's not multiplication :) it is the second case: a part of type declaration:
NSString * = pointer to NSString structure (you can't use NSString alone)
Fraction * = pointer to Fraction structure and Fraction structure is described in Fraction class
So it's not “pointer to the Fraction class”, but rather “pointer to structure of Fraction class”.
I will go a little further and answer your future question about two **. You may see this usually with NSError arguments that are defined like methodWithError:(NSError **)errorPtr.
Short story: int is to int * as NSError * is to NSError **.
Long story: If we cannot manipulate with objects directly (without pointers to them), the single pointer becomes standard part of declaration. Now what if we want to make indirect access to the object? We use double pointer! First * is required for object, second is for indirection.
NSError *error = nil; // Empty.
NSError **errorPtr = &error; // Reference to our local `error` variable.
[data writeToURL:URL options:kNilOptions error:errorPtr];
// That method uses: (*errorPtr) = [NSError errorWith...];
NSLog(#"Error: %#", error); // Our local error is no longer empty.
I believe pointers are weird when you come from Java. They are a bit of legacy from C, but they are not used in any crazy way.
The * symbol is simply syntax that's used when referring to pointers.
Here, myFraction, and fraction are both variables that hold pointers (they aren't objects themselves – in fact you never have variables that hold Objective-C objects, objects must always be referred to with pointers).
The (Fraction*) syntax describes a cast to a pointer-to-a-Fraction of the expression on its right (in this case the fraction variable).
Remember that a pointer is just a variable that holds a memory location.
In Objective-C, when you have an object, what you really have is a pointer to an object, that is, a variable whose value is the memory address where the object really is.
Casting a pointer to a pointer of another type has no effect at runtime (at least for objects). In fact all your objects could be of type (void *). The casting helps the compiler to know what kind of object the pointer is pointing to, and generate errors or warnings.
If these two little paragraphs don't make much sense to you right now, consider reading some basic information or tutorials on pointers. Understanding pointers can be challenging for a beginner or from someone transitioning form the Java world.
...failed to explain the use of the '*'/pointer when casting...
Pointers have little to do with casting, other than being part of a type specifier. Consider:
Fraction is a type -- for the sake of argument, let's imagine that it's the name of a class, and that Fraction is a subclass of another class called Number.
Fraction * is a pointer to an instance of the Fraction class. In Objective-C, you always use pointers to refer to objects, so you'll see a lot of variables with types of the form ClassName *.
Casting is simply a matter of telling the compiler that it should treat a variable as a certain type. So, let's say you've got a variable number of type Number * and you know that the object it points to is actually a Fraction. However, you can't use any of the methods that are specific to Fraction because, as far as the compiler is concerned, number is just a Number *. You can use a type cast to tell the compiler: "I know what I'm doing, and number is definitely pointing to an instance of Fraction, so please treat number as a Fraction *." You do it like this:
Fraction *f = (Fraction *)number;
But again, the * doesn't have any special significance in the casting operation beyond the fact that Fraction * is the type to which you're casting number.
Related
I realize 99% of you think "what the h***…" But please help me to get my head around the this concept of using pointers. I'm sure my specific question would help lots of newbies.
I understand what pointers ARE and that they are a reference to an adress in memory and that by using the (*) operator you can get the value in that address.
Let's say:
int counter = 10;
int *somePointer = &counter;
Now I have the address in memory of counter, and I can indirectly point to its value by doing this:
int x = *somePointer;
Which makes x = 10, right?
But this is the most basic example, and for this case I could use int x = counter; and get that value, so please explain why pointers really are such an important thing in Objective-C and some other languages... in what case would only a pointer make sense?
Appreciate it.
Objective-C has pointers because it is an evolution of C, which used pointers extensively. The advantage of a pointer in an object-oriented language like Objective-C is that after you create an object, you can pass around a pointer to the object instead of passing around the object itself. In other words, if you have some object that takes up a large amount of storage space, passing around a pointer is a lot more memory-efficient than passing around a copy of the object itself. This may not be noticeable in simple cases when you’re only dealing with primitive types like ints, but when you start dealing with more complex objects the memory and time savings are enormous.
More importantly, pointers make it much easier for different parts of your code to talk to each other. If variables could only be passed to functions “by value” instead of “by reference” (which is what happens when you use pointers), then functions could never alter their inputs. They could only change the state of your program by either returning a value or by changing a global variable—the overuse of which generally leads to sloppy, unorganized code.
Here’s a concrete example. Suppose you have an Objective-C method that will parse a JSON string and return an NSDictionary:
+ (NSDictionary *)parseJsonString:(NSString *)json
error:(NSError **)error;
The method will do the parsing and return an NSDictionary if everything goes okay. But what if there’s some problem with the input string? We want a way to indicate to the user (or at least to the programmer) what happened, so we have a pointer to a pointer to an NSError, which will contain that information. If our method fails (probably returning nil), we can dereference the error parameter to see what went wrong. What we’ve effectively done is to give our method two different kinds of return values: usually, it will return an NSDictionary, but it could also return an NSError.
If you want to read more about this, you may have better luck searching for “pointers in C” rather than “pointers in Objective-C”; pointers are of course used extensively in Objective-C, but all of the underlying machinery is identical to that of C itself.
What is the biggest advantage of using pointers in ObjectiveC
I'd say the biggest advantage is that you can use Objective-C at all - all Objective-C objects are pointers are accessed using pointers (the compiler and the runtime won't let you create objects statically), so you wouldn't get any further without them...
Item:
What if I told you to write me a program that would maintain a set of counters, but the number of counters would be entered by the user when he started the program. We code this with an array of integers allocated on the heap.
int *counters = malloc(numOfCounters * sizeof(int));
Malloc works with memory directly, so it by nature returns a pointer. All Objective-C objects are heap-allocated with malloc, so these are always pointers.
Item:
What if I told you to write me a function that read a file, and then ran another function when it was done. However, this other function was unknown and would be added by other people, people I didn't even know.
For this we have the "callback". You'd write a function that looked like this:
int ReadAndCallBack(FILE *fileToRead, int numBytes, int whence, void(*callback)(char *));
That last argument is a pointer to a function. When someone calls the function you've written, they do something like this:
void MyDataFunction(char *dataToProcess);
ReadAndCallBack(myFile, 1024, 0, MyDataFunction);
Item:
Passing a pointer as a function argument is the most common way of returning multiple values from a function. In the Carbon libraries on OSX, almost all of the library functions return an error status, which poses a problem if a library function has to return something useful to the programmer. So you pass the address where you'd like the function to hand information back to you...
int size = 0;
int error = GetFileSize(afilePath,&size);
If the function call returns an error, it is in error, if there was no error, error will probably be zero and size will contain what we need.
The biggest advantage of pointers in Objective-C, or in any language with dynamic allocation, is that your program can handle more items than the names that you invent in your source code.
If I declare an NSMutableString
NSMutableString *str_value;
Why do I have to declare this as a pointer (using *)? If I don't, I get a compilation error.
Could someone explain this clearly?
Recall that Objective C is a superset of C. When you declare a variable without * in C, it is an indication that the memory for that variable is allocated either in the automatic storage if it is a local variable, as part of its outer structure if it is a member of a structure, or in the static memory if it is a static or a global. Using the typename or a structure tag without * in a parameter list of a function indicates passing by value.
The designers of the Objective C language could have taken the Java-like route, making every class instance is a pointer without the pointer syntax, but then the readers of programs in Objective C would need to know if a name represents a typedef based on a struct or an id type to answer even the most basic questions about objects of that type, such as if it is implicitly passed by pointer or by value, if it is allocated as part of the owning structure or as a heap object pointed to by a pointer inside the structure, and so on.
To avoid this kind of confusion, designers of Objective C decided to preserve the explicit pointer syntax for id objects.
A pointer means you are pointing / referencing to that class. Yes it will cause a compilation error, the reason for a pointer is mainly for memory. One data type (int or BOOL or float etc...) is only a few bytes, therefore it is not necessary to have a pointer. But NSMutableString and other Objective-C classes have a lot of properties and methods, with a lot of code. Therefore, since in your apps will have a lot of objects, which will use a lot of memory and thus slow down your app/decrease performance. Of course you should release the object once you make a pointer.
When casting around (no pun intended) to clarify when to use __strong in a variable declaration I came across these lines in the Transitioning to ARC Release Notes:
You should decorate variables correctly. When using qualifiers in an object variable declaration, the correct format is:
ClassName * qualifier variableName;
for example:
MyClass * __weak myWeakReference;
MyClass * __unsafe_unretained myUnsafeReference;
Other variants are technically incorrect but are “forgiven” by the compiler. To understand the issue, see http://cdecl.org/.
I suspect this is some sort of in-joke on Apple’s part, but I don’t suppose I get it. It clearly doesn’t matter but I would like to do it right. What is the importance of correctly “decorating” a variable declaration, and what point is cdecl.org trying to make?
Edit: to clarify, I want to understand precisely why writing
qualifier ClassName * variableName;
is "technically incorrect."
So I think I have an answer, but I can’t be sure if I’m correct. Feel free to provide a better one, or comment/upvote if you think I’ve nailed it.
CDecl is a C program which you can download from that same website. It exists to solve problems such as in this question.
Variable declarations in C can be pretty notorious, especially when typedefs are taken into account. There is a good introduction to this over at Unixwiz.net. You’ll find there a helpful introduction that will allow you to read even such monsters as char *(*(**foo [][8])())[]; (foo is array of array of 8 pointer to pointer to function returning pointer to array of pointer to char).
The rule with these is effectively proximity. Consider the simple example
const int * foo
This declares foo as a pointer to a constant int. However,
int * const foo
will declare foo as a constant pointer to an int. The subtle difference is discussed thoroughly in this question. (essentially, in the first example you can make foo point to another constant int, but cannot modify the constant int through foo; in the second, you can modify the int which foo points to, but you can’t make foo point to any other location in memory).
With these ARC attributes, the syntax of using
__strong NSString * myString
would declare myView as a pointer to a “strong” UIView. This is nonsensical. Only pointers to objects can have the attribute of being strong (or weak or whatever) under ARC. Therefore it is good practice to write
NSString * __strong myString
since this is in line with other C keywords.
I did ask myself: what happens under ARC if you declare a strong object pointer to a weak object pointer to, say, an NSString, like so
NSString * __weak * __strong myContrivedPointer;
but the same applies. Nothing but an object pointer can have these keywords. Consequently, it is nonsensical to declare a pointer to a pointer “strong”.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
objective c difference between id and void *
why most of the objects we create in iphone are pointers
According to Stanford university course, 2010/2011
Lecture 3
The guy made something strange there (at least for me), which is that
NSString *digit = sender.titlelabel.text;
Why is digit a pointer?
The type of your digit is id, which is just basically just a C pointer to a certain struct. All references to objects in Objective-C have this primitive type, regardless of the Class of the object. So the answer to your question is, unfortunately, because that's the way Objective-C works.
So whether you're declaring an NSString*, or an UITableViewController*, or MyClass*, your variable has type id. This is the primary means by which the language implements polymorphism. So, for example, the following declarations are equivalent:
NSString *digit;
id digit;
And it's true of method prototypes as well. These are equivalent:
-(UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView)tableView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath
-(id)tableView:(id)tableView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(id)indexPath;
A variable of type id is not an object itself, it is a pointer to an object. It is the handle with which you manipulate an object. Objective-C does all of the class compatibility work at runtime.
Hope this helps. Any questions?
Updates
That's right: int, float, double, char, void, and the pointer combinations, are all C primitive types. You can and will still use these quite a bit, and they are just what they are in a C program. But Objective-C adds the id type as a way to bridge the gap between the primitive typing of C and the very high-level typing of objects by the Objective-C system. id itself is typedef'd as a pointer to a simple struct in objc.h. At the level of the compiler and the language itself, there really isn't too much meaning to the type. For example, you'll almost never declare an array of ids, certainly never perform any arithmetic with them.
In fact, it's not too far a stretch to say that Objective-C is just plain vanilla C with some added syntax (particularly, the square-bracket notation for method invocation), a few extra primitive types (id, IMP, SEL), and a big runtime library. It's this runtime library that handles all things Object-Oriented.
Anyway, to answer your question, when you're actually programming, you will most often (99% of the time) just use class names to declare your variables - NSString *, NSData *, UITableViewController *, and so on. And the compiler will know what you're talking about, and issue a warning if you write code that clearly tries to put an NSString* where an NSData* is expected. But the actual meaning of those types really exists only at runtime.
I've digressed a little, but I'm not sure where your understanding is failing you, so I thought I'd just explain things a bit. You might want to read Apple's The Objective-C Programming Language to get a feel for the language.
NSString is an Objective-C class and all object references in Objective-C are pointers. I would suggest reading through some of the documentation such as Learning Objective-C A Primer:
Notice the * in the first declaration. In Objective-C, object
references are pointers. If this doesn’t make complete sense to you,
don’t worry—you don’t have to be an expert with pointers to be able to
start programming with Objective-C. You just have to remember to put
the * in front of the variable names for strongly-typed object
declarations. The id type implies a pointer.
It's not a digit, it's the "text" from the label, which is (I'm guessing) a string of integers and such to express the time.
So, all NSString types are declared as pointers in Obj-c.
sender.titlelabel.text;
Returns a NSString *
Remember, it's the same as:
NSString *str = [sender.titlelabel getText];
Because text is too. Or more preceisly, because the getText message returns a pointer.
You can find an intersting about why it has to be a pointer:
NSString and Pointers
I Hope it will help you to understand it in a Objective-C way.
Let's imagine I have Fraction class. So, the correct way to create instance of it is:
Fraction *myFraction;
or
myFraction = Fraction;
or
myFraction = [Fraction new];
or something else?
In the book i'm studying the correct one is first, but it looks unreasonable to me. Why do we have to create a pointer for it? Why don't we make the real instance?
That first expression means - give me a pointer to the new instance of Fraction class, doesn't it?
The first declares a variable named myFraction of type Fraction *, but doesn't create anything, nor initialize myFraction. The second isn't valid. The third creates a new Fraction and assigns it to a previously declared variable named myFraction. Often in Objective-C, you'll declare and initialize a variable in a single statement:
Fraction *myFraction = [[Fraction alloc] init];
As for whether to use new or alloc followed by init, it's largely a matter of taste.
Variables for storing objects are pointers in part because Objective-C inherited C's call-by-value semantics. When one variable is assigned to another (such as when passing it to a function), the value will be copied. At best, this is inefficient for immutable objects. At worst, it leads to incorrect behavior. Pointers are a way around call-by-value and the copy-on-assign semantics: the value of a variable with pointer type is just the pointer. It can be copied without touching the target object. The cost for this is you need some form of memory management.
It would be a good idea to read Kernihan and Ritchie's "The C Programming Language" so you can get an idea about how variables are declared.
There are two modes of allocation in C and Obj-C and C++: manual and automatic.
Integers and floats and characters and such are generally automatically declared. They are created when the declaration passes (i.e. int i), and deleted when the scope they were created in goes away, i.e. when you exit the block in which they were declared. They're called automatics. (it's also possible to declare them "static" but for the purposes of this discussion regarding allocation, these are the same)
Objects are too complicated to pass around to functions, as function parameters are "pass by value", meaning that the parameter gets a copy of the value being passed in, instead of the variable itself. It'd take a huge amount of time to copy a whole object all the time.
For this reason, you want to just tell the various functions where they can find the object. Instead of handing off a copy of the object, you hand off a copy of the address of the object. The address is stored in an automatic with a type of pointer. (This is really just an integer, but it's size is dictated by the hardware and OS, so it needs to be a special type.)
The declaration Fraction *myFraction; means "myFraction is a pointer, and just so you know, it's going to point to a Fraction later."
This will automatically allocate the pointer, but not the whole Fraction. For that to happen, you must call alloc and init.
The big reason why you have this two step process is that since we typically want objects to stick around for a while, we don't want the system automatically killing them at the end of a function. We need them to persist. We create places to hang the object in our functions, but those hangers go away when they aren't needed. We don't want them taking the object with them.
Ultimately, you might make declarations like this:
Fraction *myFraction = [[Fraction alloc] initWithNumerator: 2 Denominator: 3];
which says: "Make me a Fraction, and set it to be 2/3, and then put the address of that Fraction into 'myFraction'."
Why do we have to create a pointer for it? Why don't we make the real instance?
In Objective-C, every object is pointer type. So, you need to use either new or alloc/init.
Fraction *myFraction = [ Fraction new ] ;
or
Fraction *myFraction = [ [Fraction alloc] init ] ;
And myFraction needs to be released.
That first expression means - give me a pointer to the new instance of Fraction class, doesn't it?
No, you are just declaring a pointer of type Fraction. And the second statement is not even valid.