I have this piece of code:
#interface Bar : UIView
- (id)initWithInt:(int)i;
#end
#implementation Bar
- (id)initWithInt:(int)i {
self = [super init];
return self;
}
#end
void func() {
[[[Bar alloc] initWithInt:10] doSomething];
}
The compiler gives me an error in the func() function: No visible #Interface for Bar declares the selector doSomething.
I do have another #interface with the method doSomething.
The compiler somehow assumed that initWithInt: returns instancetype rather than id.
What are the rules to this? In what cases does a compiler assume that a method returns instancetype?
In what cases does a compiler assume that a method returns
instancetype?
That is documented in "CLANG LANGUAGE EXTENSIONS":
According to Cocoa conventions, Objective-C methods with certain names
(“init”, “alloc”, etc.) always return objects that are an instance of
the receiving class’s type. Such methods are said to have a “related
result type”, meaning that a message send to one of these methods will
have the same static type as an instance of the receiver class.
...
To determine whether a method has an inferred related result type, the first word in the
camel-case selector (e.g., “init” in “initWithObjects”) is considered,
and the method will have a related result type if its return type is
compatible with the type of its class and if:
the first word is “alloc” or “new”, and the method is a class method,
or the first word is “autorelease”, “init”, “retain”, or “self”, and
the method is an instance method.
So your initWithInt: method has a "inferred related result type", and
therefore the compiler assumes that it returns an instance of Bar.
don't know BUT
inits always should return instance types anyways. it is only logical. I cannot imagine any other situation.
Just import the subclass that declares doSomething and you're good
I do have another #interface with the method doSomething.
Each class must have exactly one #interface (although you can make class extension, categories, etc. to add further methods). If your -doSomething method is in a category (or class extension) in another file, make sure that its declaration is visible in this file via an #import.
Related
Assume the following Objective-C class:
#interface Appliance : NSObject
{
NSString *productName;
int voltage;
}
#end
What are the pros and cons of implementing init method A instead of B?
A) -(id)initWithName:(NSString *)name;
B) -(Appliance *)initWithName:(NSString *)name;
I see they both work in XCode, i.e. they both will result in a valid Appliance instance. "A" seems to be the standard among books I've read and codebases I've looked at, and I'm wondering why this is.
Point in fact, for quite some time the best practice return type from a class initializer (in Objective-C) is instancetype instead of id.
Oh, reopen. :-)
Indeed, you did not ask for the difference id vs. instancetype. And for -init… the answer to this non-asked Q would be easy: There is no difference, because the compiler converts id to instancetype silently.
You asked for id vs. CustomClass*. And you get a completely different answer from me: With CustomClass* a subclass had to cast the result of the superclass' designated initializer. Let's have an example:
#interface BaseClass : NSObject
- (BaseClass*)initWithWhatever; // Typed to class, designated initializer
#end
#implementation BaseClass
- (BaseClass*)initWithWhatever // Typed to class
{
self = [super init]; // What's the return type of -init (NSObject)?
…
}
#end
#interface Subclass : BaseClass
// First problem: I like it to announce in the interface, that a class overwrites
// a method of the base class. Doing so I would have to change the return type. Ugly.
// If I do not redeclare -initWithWhatever it is inherited from BaseClass, still
// having BaseClass* as the return type. Is that the truth? Really?
// However, I do not overwrite it here, but have a new initializer.
- (Subclass*)initWithSomethingElse;
#end
#implementation Subclass
- (Subclass*)initWithSomethingElse
{
// Second Problem:
// First, I have to execute the superclass' designated initializer
self = [super initWithWhatever];
// Wait a minute!
// self is a reference to Subclass. The return value of -initWithWhatever has the type
// BaseClass*. So I assign a reference of the base class to a reference of the subclass:
// Compiler error, false positive. The code is correct.
// So I would have to cast. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
#end
…
// Third problem:
Subclass *object = [[Subclass alloc] initWithWhatever];
// Typing -initWithWhatever to BaseClass* would lead to a compiler error here again.
// Compiler error, false positive. The code is correct.
To make the long story short: Without a mass of castings it would be impossible to type initializers to the concrete class.
I have two classes: BatchDownloader, SpeechDownlader
BatchDownloader is the base class, and SpeechDownloader inherited it.
In BatchDownloader, whenever one file was downloaded, -(void)downloadComplete:task will be called.
But in SpeechDownloader, I also want to post a notification in downloadComplete:task.
Can I just write the method with the same name in SpeechDownloader's implementation ? or there is a better way ?
Thanks.
p.s. I don't want to make -(void)downloadComplete:task public, because it should only be called by itself.
If you implement a method in a subclass that has the same name as a private method in a superclass, your subclass method will be called on instances of your subclass.
i.e., if you implement a method in your superclass like this, without declaring it anywhere:
#implementation classA
- (void)doSomething {
NSLog("a");
}
Then, in your subclass implementation, implement a method with the same name:
#implementation subclassOfA
- (void)doSomething {
NSLog("b");
}
When you call doSomething on an instance of your subclass, the subclass implementation will be called instead of the superclass implementation, so the code in this example will result in "b" being printed to the console.
However, if you also want to access the superclass implementation of the method, you can use:
- (void)doSomething {
[super doSomething];
NSLog("b");
}
This will also call the superclass implementation. If you get a compile error (due to the method being private and super not appearing to implement it), you can use [super performSelector:#selector(doSomething)] instead to do exactly the same thing.
This happens because of the way the Objective-C runtime looks up method calls. Since these methods have exactly the same method signature (same name, return type and arguments [none]), they are considered equal, and the runtime always checks the class of the object before looking in superclasses, so it will find the subclass method implementation first.
Also, this means you can do this:
classA *test = [subclassOfA new];
[test doSomething];
And, surprise surprise, the console will print "b" (Or "a b" if you called the super implementation too).
If you implement the method with the same method signature it will be called faith your implementation, public or not.
I have a class and this class has a delegate protocol. I create an object in the main class using this class and assigned the main class as the delegate. The main class has a property I would like to read inside the created class. Then I do this:
BOOL prop = [self.delegate myProperty];
Xcode complains that "delegate may not respond to myProperty"
If I am sending a message to self.delegate to read myProperty, and generally Xcode never complains when you send a message to an not casted object, why do I have to do that
BOOL prop = [(myMainClass *)self.delegate myProperty];
to make it work?
To be more clear, here is an example of a message sent to an object without having to cast:
[self.myArray enumerateObjectsUsingBlock:^(id obj, NSUInteger index, BOOL *stop){
int Number = [[obj dictionaryOfNames] count];
}];
self.myArray is an array of objects from another class that are dictionaries and have this property dictionaryOfNames. Xcode never asked me to cast this:
int Number = [[(myOtherClass *)obj dictionaryOfNames] count];
as I had to above for myProperty.
Different classes can conform to a protocol. If you declare that you conform to a protocol you just say that you will implement the requiered methods but you can implement it in a UIView, UIViewController, MyOwnClass, MyOtherClass etc.
Thats why a property is normally declared like this
#property (nonatomic, weak) id <MyProtocol> delegate;
So you just say your delegate is an object which conform to the protocol.
You haven't shown enough code to give a completely definitive answer, but in general terms I would expect that the definition of your delegate is not just id, you've probably used NSObject* or something similar.
The compiler is doing "static" analysis of your source code and trying to determine whether or not the object specified by "self.delegate" might implement that method. If the data type is, say, NSObject*, then the compiler looks through that specific class definition to see if your method is present; if it isn't, then you'll get a warning.
If the data type of the message receiver is id, the compiler tends to give up and say "well, it could be anything so I'll assume this will work".
The result of the expression [obj dictionaryOfNames] is probably of type NSDictionary and the compiler can see that that particular class does respond to the count method.
Note, you can also get this problem if you have specified a class name for a property, but the compiler cannot see the entire class definition from this file. For example, if you have
myobject.h:
#class Something;
#interface MyObject
#property (retain) Something *delegate;
#end
myobject.m:
#import "myobject.h"
[self.delegate doItYouFool];
then the compiler can see that the result of the expression 'self.delegate' is of type Something* but it can not see the actual definition of that class and thus can't look through its supported messages. This usually results in a warning about 'forward definitions'. To fix it, you should import "something.h" into the .m file, so that the compiler has full knowledge about the classes it is working with. To just silence the warning, you cast to id
[(id)self.delegate doItYouFool];
You may, of course, also be getting warnings that 'doItYouFool' isn't a known method, again because you haven't included the header file that defines that message.
I have a class that essentially acts as a light weight wrapper class around another class. It holds that other class as an iVar. I want to be able to expose certain properties (quite a few actually) of the iVar, but to do so I have to write out each property accessor like so:
- (void) setProperty:(Class *)value{
_iVar.property = value;
}
- (Class *) property{
return _iVar.property;
}
Of course, I have to do this for every single property, which is a pain (there are about 30 of them). I would love to be able to synthesize this but I haven't been able to figure out how.
Is it possible to synthesize?
Also, I can't subclass....well, I might be able to but it's really not recommended. The iVar class is really quite heavy (it implements CoreText). I'd rather write out the methods by hand.
Ok, so here's the solution I found...ended up being pretty simple once you knew what to do. First overwrite '- (id) forwardingTargetForSelector:(SEL)aSelector' and return the iVar:
- (id) forwardingTargetForSelector:(SEL)aSelector{
return iVar;
}
When the runtime is looking for a method and cannot find one, it will call this method to see if there is another object to forward the message to. Note that this method normally returns nil and if you return nil here, your program will crash (which is the appropriate behavior).
The second part of the problem is to shush the compiler errors/warnings you'll get when you try to send a message that's not declared. This is easily done by declaring a category you don't implement.
#interface Class (iVarClassMethods)
#propoperty (strong) Class *property1;
......more properties
#end
As long as you don't put in an implementation anywhere, aka #implementation Class (category), the compiler won't complain (it'll assume that the implementation is somewhere....).
Now the only drawback I see is if you change any of the properties in the interface of the iVar Class, you need to make sure you update all other classes that use the method described above, otherwise you'll crash when another class tries to send what is now the wrong method (and the compiler won't warn you beforehand). However, this can be gotten around. You can declare protocols in a category. So instead you create a separate protocol for the iVar class and move the methods/properties you wish out of the iVar class into the protocol.
#protocol iVarClassProtocol
#propoperty (strong) Class *property1;
......more properties
#end
Add that protocol to the iVar subclass so it has those methods declared through the protocol now.
#interface iVarClass <iVarClassProtocol>
....other methods/properties you don't need forwarded
#end
Finally, simply add the protocol to the category. So instead of the aforementioned category with explicit declarations you'll have:
#interface Class (iVarClassMethods) <iVarClassProtocol>
#end
Now, if you need to change any of the to-be-fowarded properties/methods, you change them in the protocol. The compiler will then warn you when you try to send the wrong method to the forwarding class.
I think you can forward the messages to the ivar:
- (void) forwardInvocation: (NSInvocation*) invocation
{
[invocation invokeWithTarget:ivar];
}
- (NSMethodSignature*) methodSignatureForSelector: (SEL) selector
{
NSMethodSignature *our = [super methodSignatureForSelector:selector];
NSMethodSignature *ivars = [ivar methodSignatureForSelector:selector];
return our ? our : ivars;
}
Then you have to hide or fake the type of your object, for example by casting to id, otherwise the compiler will complain that your class does not implement those methods.
Of course it would be best if you could come up with some better design that would do without such tricks.
When using categories, you can override implementation methods with your own like so:
// Base Class
#interface ClassA : NSObject
- (NSString *) myMethod;
#end
#implementation ClassA
- (NSString*) myMethod { return #"A"; }
#end
//Category
#interface ClassA (CategoryB)
- (NSString *) myMethod;
#end
#implementation ClassA (CategoryB)
- (NSString*) myMethod { return #"B"; }
#end
Calling the method "myMethod" after including the category nets the result "B".
What is the easiest way for the Category implementation of myMethod to call the original Class A myMethod? As near as I can figure out, you'd have to use the low level calls to get the original method hook for Class A and call that, but it seemed like there would be a syntactically easier way to do this.
If you want a hackish way to do this that involves mucking with the objective-c runtime you can always use method swizzling (insert standard disclaimers here.) It will allow you to store the different methods as arbitrariliy named selectors, then swap them in at runtime as you need them.
From comp.lang.objective-C FAQ listing: "What if multiple categories implement the same method? Then the fabric of the Universe as we know it ceases to exist. Actually, that's not quite true, but certainly some problems will be caused. When a category implements a method which has already appeared in a class (whether through another category, or the class' primary #implementation), that category's definition overwrites the definition which was previously present. The original definition can no longer be reached by the Objective-C code. Note that if two categories overwrite the same method then whichever was loaded last "wins", which may not be possible to predict before the code is launched."
From developer.apple.com: "When a category overrides an inherited method, the method in the category can, as usual, invoke the inherited implementation via a message to super. However, if a category overrides a method that already existed in the category's class, there is no way to invoke the original implementation"
Check out my article about a solution found on the Mac Developer Library:
http://codeshaker.blogspot.com/2012/01/calling-original-overridden-method-from.html
Basically, it's the same as the above Method Swizzling with a brief example:
#import <objc/runtime.h>
#implementation Test (Logging)
- (NSUInteger)logLength {
NSUInteger length = [self logLength];
NSLog(#"Logging: %d", length);
return length;
}
+ (void)load {
method_exchangeImplementations(class_getInstanceMethod(self, #selector(length)), class_getInstanceMethod(self, #selector(logLength)));
}
#end
With the swizzling "helper" methods included in ConciseKit, you actually call the default implementation… weirdly enough.. by calling your SWIZZLED implementation..
You set it up in + (void) load, calling + (BOOL)swizzleMethod:(SEL)originalSelector with:(SEL)anotherSelector in:(Class)klass;, i.e.
[$ swizzleMethod:#selector(oldTired:)
with:#selector(swizzledHotness:) in:self.class];
and then in the swizzled method.. let's suppose it returns -(id).. you can do your mischief, or whatever reason you are swizzling in the first place… and then, instead of returning an object, or self, or whatnot..
return [self swizzledHotness:yourSwizzledMethodsArgument];
As explained here…
In this method, it looks like we're calling the same method again, causing and endless recursion. But by the time this line is reached the two method have been swapped. So when we call swizzled_synchronize we're actually calling the original method.
It feels and looks odd, but.. it works. This enables you to add endless embellishments to existing methods, and still "call super" (actually self) and reap the benefits of the original method's handiwork… even without access to the original source.