Inside an Objective-C method, it is possible to get the selector of the method with the keyword _cmd. Does such a thing exist for the names of arguments?
For example, if I have a method declared as such:
- (void)methodWithAnArgument:(id)foo {
...
}
Is there some sort of construct that would allow me to get access to some sort of string-like representation of the variable name? That is, not the value of foo, but something that actually reflects the variable name "foo" in a local variable inside the method.
This information doesn't appear to be stored in NSInvocation or any of its related classes (NSMethodSignature, etc), so I'm not optimistic this can be done using Apple's frameworks or the runtime. I suspect it might be possible with some sort of compile-time macro, but I'm unfamiliar with C macros so I wouldn't know where to begin.
Edit to contain more information about what I'm actually trying to do.
I'm building a tool to help make working with third-party URL schemes easier. There are two sides to how I want my API to look:
As a consumer of a URL scheme, I can call a method like [twitterHandler showUserWithScreenName:#"someTwitterHandle"];
As a creator of an app with a URL scheme, I can define my URLs in a plist dictionary, whose key-value pairs look something like #"showUserWithScreenName": #"twitter://user?screenName={screenName}".
What I'm working on now is finding the best way to glue these together. The current fully-functioning implementation of showUserWithScreenName: looks something like this:
- (void)showUserWithScreenName:(NSString *)screenName {
[self performCommand:NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) withArguments:#{#"screenName": screenName}];
}
Where performCommand:withArguments: is a method that (besides some other logic) looks up the command key in the plist (in this case "showUserWithScreenName:") and evaluates the value as a template using the passed dictionary as the values to bind.
The problem I'm trying to solve: there are dozens of methods like this that look exactly the same, but just swap out the dictionary definition to contain the correct template params. In every case, the desired dictionary key is the name of the parameter. I'm trying to find a way to minimize my boilerplate.
In practice, I assume I'm going to accept that there will be some boilerplate needed, but I can probably make it ever-so-slightly cleaner thanks to NSDictionaryOfVariableBindings (thanks #CodaFi — I wasn't familiar with that macro!). For the sake of argument, I'm curious if it would be possible to completely metaprogram this using something like forwardInvocation:, which as far as I can tell would require some way to access parameter names.
You can use componentsSeparatedByString: with a : after you get the string from NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) and use your #selector's argument names to put the arguments in the correct order.
You can also take a look at this post, which is describing the method naming conventions in Objective C
Related
Let's say I have a type of object in my game called oCharacter. All characters must have names, so I want to provide one when I construct the object. I can do that by using the _variables argument of instance_create_layer:
instance_create_layer(0, 0, "Instances", oCharacter, { name: "George" });
I could even make sure that I don't forget to do this by making a "constructor" function for characters and only instantiating them using that:
function character_create(_x, _y, _name) {
return instance_create_layer(_x, _y, "Instances", oCharacter, { name: _name });
}
But this approach has two problems.
The first is that I or another developer might forget about this convention and instantiate a character directly using instance_create_layer, forgetting to pass a name and setting up a runtime error further down the road.
The second (related) issue is that Feather doesn't know about this convention, so my Feather window is full of error messages about references to instance variables that aren't declared in the Create event - but I don't see how I can declare these variables in the Create event, as I'm expecting their value to be provided by the creator.
Is there some way of doing this that addresses these issues?
The first problem is just about setting rules about the code conventions within your team, if your team does not know about these conventions you want them to follow, then you should tell it them in a meeting.
For the second problem: Maybe you could create an empty/nullable variable in the Create Event? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Feather
Personally I would do two things for this.
Create development standards for the team and put them in something like a Word document, wiki page, onenote, whatever makes the most sense for your team.
I would use a function to create the instance of the object (like you're doing there), and have some simple validation checks inside of the create event itself that will cancel it's creation (something like a guard clause) and output a debug message with a reminder.
It's not the most elegant solution but that should do the trick (assuming you haven't found something else by now haha)
I'd like to be able to specify a string, let's say
NSString * pathPattern = /api/elements/:id/subelement/:type
and call a simple function
[pathPattern build:#{#":id" => id, #"subelement" => subelement}]
to generate the URL path.
Obviously I can build a simple category to do this, but does something exist that handles such things in a generic way, and maybe has additional useful features for this kind of thing that I haven't thought of at this time?
Yes, RestKit already injects parameters into path patterns. Internally it uses SOCKit to perform this parameterisation.
It actually uses exactly the format you have in the question and where the parameter names match keys on the supplied object for mapping.
The path pattern can also be used during response mapping to take values back out of the request URL.
I have run into someone else's code that declares methods like this:
- (void) method:(id)a:(NSString*)b { }
The compiler accepts this code, giving just a warning:
'a' used as the name of the previous parameter rather than as part of the selector
The code declares various functions with this type and then invokes them through NSSelectorFromString, using the signature "methodname::". So it's all consistent.
I wonder if that method signature is just a mistake or if there's more to it. Since it's used consistently in the code, I don't think this is a typo. I don't know the author so I can't tell if this is code of a genius or the opposite.
Is 'b' an anonymous parameter? (If so, shouldn't it rather be written with a blank between the "a" and ":" to indicate this better?) I can't find anything about anon parms in the ObjC docs, though.
Will there be any change in behavior if I change the syntax to giving the second parameter a name, and fixing the signature reference accordingly? I plan to make this change to get rid of the warnings, but I wonder I might create an issue that I'm not aware of.
Everything you describe is pretty much correct. It's very bad style, but technically it's just a two-argument selector which happens to have no text before the second :. I wouldn't call b an anonymous argument since you can still give it a name, it just doesn't have any descriptive text before it as part of the selector's name.
Yes, there should probably be a space after the a.
If you want to rename it, you can use Xcode's standard Refactor->Rename functionality and just insert some text before the second :. It will update all the references and you should encounter no problems.
You can use the signature method::, even though it is not recommended by most people.
Just insert a space character before each : separating the parameters, and the compiler is happy:
- (void) method:(id)a :(NSString*)b
On page 16 "Message Syntax" of The Objective-C Programming Language
this is called an "unlabeled argument", or an "argument without keyword".
Of course you can change it to
- (void) method:(id)a withB:(NSString*)b
but this changes the selector to method:withB:.
I'm currently working on my first major project in clojure and have run into a question regarding coding style and the most "clojure-esque" way of doing something. Basically I have a function I'm writing which takes in a data structure and a template that the function will try to massage the data structure into. The template structure will look something like this:
{
:key1 (:string (:opt :param))
:key2 (:int (:opt :param))
:key3 (:obj (:tpl :template-structure))
:key4 (:list (:tpl :template-structure))
}
Each key is an atom that will be searched for in the given data structure, and it's value will be attempted to be matched to the type given in the template structure. So it would look for :key1 and check that it's a string, for instance. The return value would be a map that has :key1 pointing to the value from the given data structure (the function could potentially change the value depending on the options given).
In the case of :obj it takes in another template structure, and recursively calls itself on that value and the template structure, and places the result from that in the return. However, if there's an error I want that error returned directly.
Similarly for lists I want it to basically do a map of the function again, except in the case of an error which I want returned directly.
My question is what is the best way to handle these errors? Some simple exception handling would be the easiest way, but I feel that it's not the most functional way. I could try and babysit the errors all the way up the chain with tons of if statements, but that also doesn't seem very sporting. Is there something simple I'm missing or is this just an ugly problem?
You might be interested in schematic, which does pretty similar stuff. You can see how it's used in the tests, and the implementation.
Basically I defined an error function, which returns nil for correctly-formatted data, or a string describing the error. Doing it with exceptions instead would make the plumbing easier, but would make it harder to get the detailed error messages like "[person: [first_name: expected string, got integer]]".
In my language I can use a class variable in my method when the definition appears below the method. It can also call methods below my method and etc. There are no 'headers'. Take this C# example.
class A
{
public void callMethods() { print(); B b; b.notYetSeen();
public void print() { Console.Write("v = {0}", v); }
int v=9;
}
class B
{
public void notYetSeen() { Console.Write("notYetSeen()\n"); }
}
How should I compile that? what i was thinking is:
pass1: convert everything to an AST
pass2: go through all classes and build a list of define classes/variable/etc
pass3: go through code and check if there's any errors such as undefined variable, wrong use etc and create my output
But it seems like for this to work I have to do pass 1 and 2 for ALL files before doing pass3. Also it feels like a lot of work to do until I find a syntax error (other than the obvious that can be done at parse time such as forgetting to close a brace or writing 0xLETTERS instead of a hex value). My gut says there is some other way.
Note: I am using bison/flex to generate my compiler.
My understanding of languages that handle forward references is that they typically just use the first pass to build a list of valid names. Something along the lines of just putting an entry in a table (without filling out the definition) so you have something to point to later when you do your real pass to generate the definitions.
If you try to actually build full definitions as you go, you would end up having to rescan repatedly, each time saving any references to undefined things until the next pass. Even that would fail if there are circular references.
I would go through on pass one and collect all of your class/method/field names and types, ignoring the method bodies. Then in pass two check the method bodies only.
I don't know that there can be any other way than traversing all the files in the source.
I think that you can get it down to two passes - on the first pass, build the AST and whenever you find a variable name, add it to a list that contains that blocks' symbols (it would probably be useful to add that list to the corresponding scope in the tree). Step two is to linearly traverse the tree and make sure that each symbol used references a symbol in that scope or a scope above it.
My description is oversimplified but the basic answer is -- lookahead requires at least two passes.
The usual approach is to save B as "unknown". It's probably some kind of type (because of the place where you encountered it). So you can just reserve the memory (a pointer) for it even though you have no idea what it really is.
For the method call, you can't do much. In a dynamic language, you'd just save the name of the method somewhere and check whether it exists at runtime. In a static language, you can save it in under "unknown methods" somewhere in your compiler along with the unknown type B. Since method calls eventually translate to a memory address, you can again reserve the memory.
Then, when you encounter B and the method, you can clear up your unknowns. Since you know a bit about them, you can say whether they behave like they should or if the first usage is now a syntax error.
So you don't have to read all files twice but it surely makes things more simple.
Alternatively, you can generate these header files as you encounter the sources and save them somewhere where you can find them again. This way, you can speed up the compilation (since you won't have to consider unchanged files in the next compilation run).
Lastly, if you write a new language, you shouldn't use bison and flex anymore. There are much better tools by now. ANTLR, for example, can produce a parser that can recover after an error, so you can still parse the whole file. Or check this Wikipedia article for more options.