Sometimes we may explicitly specify the name of an instance variable in the synthesize statement, e.g.,
In SomeViewController.h,
//....
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSObject *variable;
//....
In SomeViewController.m,
//....
#synthesize variable = _variable;
//....
But why bother making this extra effort if the instance variable will be implicitly named as _variable even if we simply put it as:
#synthesize variable;
in the SomeViewController.m.
Can anyone share some idea on why it is necessary? Thank you :D
Just to avoid confusion (see comments): Using the = _variable part of the #synthesize is not required, nor is the #synthesize itself required any more.
This effort is only requied, when you want to link the property to a specific instance variable. With earlier Objective-C versions this part of the statement was required to set the name to something different from the property name, so when you want to call the iVar _variable and the property variable. The default would be variable (unlike your question). Without that = something ivar and property have the same name.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with using the same name for both. But having different names, a leading _ would do, makes it more clear to the programmer whether he/she accesses the ivar directly or though the accessor methods. Sometimes this is of vast importance, especially when not using ARC. Therefore it helps avoiding errors.
With current Objective-C, however, you could omit the #synthesize statement at all and go with the defaults in that case. The default automatically synthesized instance variable name would have a leading _ so _variable in your example.
Related
I was reading the tutorials in the official Apple site about synthesizing properties at Apple. Here is an excerpt:
Unless you specify otherwise, the synthesized instance variable has the same name as the property, but with an underscore prefix. For a property called firstName, for example, the synthesized instance variable will be called _firstName.
However, later, it says:
Important: If you use #synthesize without specifying an instance variable name, like this:
#synthesize firstName;
the instance variable will bear the same name as the property.
In this example, the instance variable will also be called firstName, without an underscore.
These statements appear to be in disagreement. When I am using synthesize like synthesize numerator, and later trying to use _numerator, it is showing the following error: use of undeclared identifier _numerator.
Any idea what I am doing wrong?
You can declare instance variables and properties in the #interface.
In the implementation, you can use
#synthesize property = instancevariable;
When you do that, the compiler creates an instance variable named "instancevariable" if it doesn't exist yet, and generates code for the setter and getter as needed. The variable name is anything that you want to use.
#synthesize property;
on its own is the same as
#synthesize property = property;
which means an instance variable is created with the same name as the property, if it doesn't yet exist. Whether you created an instance variable yourself starting with an underscore doesn't matter. That instance variable will be just an instance variable, possibly causing major confusion in your code.
// No synthesize statement
is exactly the same as
#synthesize property = _property;
which means an instance variable is created with a leading underscore, if it doesn't yet exist. Whether you created an instance variable yourself without an underscore doesn't matter. That instance variable will be just an instance variable, possibly causing major confusion in your code. In this case, the compiler will give a warning.
There is one exception: If you implemented all the required methods (both setter and getter, or just the getter for a readonly proper) yourself, and you don't use #synthesize, then no instance variable will be created. If you use #synthesize, an instance variable will be created as described above.
So the best choice is to just declare the #property and nothing else; an instance variable starting with an underscore will be created. If you implement both setter and getter, or just the getter of a readonly property, you may not need an instance variable. If you need one, you can declare the instance variable or create it using #synthesize.
If I don't use synthesize, and don't declare setters and getters for variables as well, how will they be accessible?
Recent versions of Objective-C make #synthesize the default for properties, so you don't need to explicitly write #synthesize firstName; -- the compiler will take care of that for you.
As #TimReddy points out in a comment, the difference between the two passages that you quoted is that one is talking about behavior when you use the #synthesize directive explicitly (the ivar gets the same name as the property), while the other describes behavior when the compiler synthesizes the ivar automatically (the ivar name is the property name with an underscore prefix).
I understand this is probably bad practice, but I was just curious as to whether or not this has any negative side-effects, in Objective-C (trying to learn as much as I can):
#interface MyClass ()
// Declare a string called 'foo'
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSString *foo
#end
#implementation MyClass
...
- (void)modifyFoo {
// Create a local variable with the same name as a property
NSString *foo = #"Hello!" // No compiler warnings?
self.foo = foo; // <---- Is this OK?
}
This will not throw up a warning in the compiler, and sure enough, my code works as normal. If there are zero negative side-effects, does the type of property, e.g. weak/strong/assign, etc, have an influence on whether or not this is OK?
Note: I am aware that this will not work when the property is synthesised.
This is fine and is my personally preferred approach. The reason no compiler warning is generated is that the instance variable is actually named _foo. This is done by the auto-synthesise added by the compiler (it generates #synthesize foo = _foo for you). Maintaining naming consistency aids clarity.
The main potential side effect is that you inadvertently add / fail to add self. and end up trying to message nil.
Firstly:
this will not work when the property is synthesised.
Huh? Why not?
Actually, it's "OK" in the sense that it works. Actually, there's no ambiguity when you use the self keyword and the dot notation to access your property. If, however, you had an instance variable with the same name as your local variable, then the object with a narrower scope (the local variable in this case) hides the one with a wider scope (the ivar). And that may be undesirable. As far as I know, it even results in a compiler warning. Furthermore, it's hard to get it wrong and decreases overall code readability, so don't do this if you have that identically named instance variable.
If I recall correctly, recent versions of the clang/LLVM toolchain automatically synthesize properties for you, and the name of the backing ivar for a property is preceded by a leading underscore, so this should not be a problem.
This question already has answers here:
What does #synthesize window=_window do?
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm just starting to use Objective-C and I need to clarify something
When I #synthesize a #property, it is common convention to do the following:
#interface Class : ParentClass
#property propertyName
#end
#implementation
#synthesize propertyName = _propertyName;
#end
I've seen plenty of questions and answers suggesting that "_propertyName" is widely accepted as the "correct" way to synthesize properties. However, does it serve ANY purpose? Or is it merely to increase readability and identify instance variables?
It makes it so that if you accidentally leave off "self." you get a nice compiler error instead of silently not having your methods called.
From http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/EncapsulatingData/EncapsulatingData.html
You Can Customize Synthesized Instance Variable Names
As mentioned earlier, the default behavior for a writeable property is
to use an instance variable called _propertyName.
If you wish to use a different name for the instance variable, you
need to direct the compiler to synthesize the variable using the
following syntax in your implementation:
#implementation YourClass #synthesize propertyName =
instanceVariableName; ... #end
Also:
Note: The compiler will automatically synthesize an instance variable
in all situations where it’s also synthesizing at least one accessor
method. If you implement both a getter and a setter for a readwrite
property, or a getter for a readonly property, the compiler will
assume that you are taking control over the property implementation
and won’t synthesize an instance variable automatically. If you still
need an instance variable, you’ll need to request that one be
synthesized: #synthesize property = _property;
By doing this the generated accessor actually got to know which variable(iVar) to use.
Yea, It increases the readability & also separates the private & public variables to understand & use. Private variable of Class generally written in "propertyName" format.You can say it is a coding convention where Private Variable Names use '' as prefix and Public Variables or Property Names are lowerCamelCase.
Why in the newest version of Xcode (dp-4) are variables declared with retain,nonatomic made to use the underscore before the variable name? Does this create some sort of type safety?
For example, I create a property:
#property (retain, nonatomic) IBOutlet UILabel *name;
Unless I change the variable inside the dealloc to not have the _, I have to do:
#synthesize name = _name;
Why is this?
Mark Dalrymple, who's way smarter than I am, wrote a blog post at Big Nerd Ranch about this very subject. Bottom line: the underscore is a good idea. I will summarize his post here just in case the link stops working in the future, but if possible you should read his post instead of my summary.
He wrote this post back when explicitly calling #synthesize was mandatory. He advocated code such as:
// soapbubble.m
#synthesize viscosity = _viscosity;
#synthesize detergentBrand = _detergentBrand;
These days Xcode automatically and implicitly includes #synthesize. And it does so using the prepended underscore so apparently Apple's engineers agree with Mark.
His first reason is stylistic. It allows you to easily see which variables are local and which are arguments in a setter:
- (void) setPonyName: (NSString *) ponyName {
[_ponyName autorelease];
_ponyName = [ponyName copy];
}
(This is a pre-ARC setter, so now this method would be completely unnecessary, but if the setter did anything more involved than simply releasing and assigning a value it would still apply.)
His second reason (and the one I think is more important) is that eliminates a certain class of bug that can be very difficult to track down.
This code:
self.ponyName = #"Mikey";
is identical to:
[self setPonyName: #"Mikey"];
Without the prepended underscore, this code is also valid:
ponyName = #"Mikey";
but it doesn't call the setter so any side effects in the setter don't occur. Again, in a situation where the setter does extra work besides changing the local variable's value this can cause big headaches. With the prepended underscore, that line would cause a compile error. You would have to be very explicit about wanting to set a local variable:
_ponyName = #"Mikey";
and, being the conscientious programmer you are, you would include a comment explaining exactly why you are performing this irregular maneuver.
"_name" in your #synthesize name = _name, is just a variable name created automatically by your Xcode. This is done because #synthesize just creates setters and getters and if you don't use _name, it'll take your property name, i.e. name (in this case) and finally leads to bugs in your app. _name is just a naming convention. You can use any variable name in place of _name. So that #synthesize will use that variable name in its implementation.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is there a difference between an “instance variable” and a “property” in Objective-c?
Difference between self.ivar and ivar?
What is the difference between declaring variables in brackets immediately after the #interface line, and defining properties below?
For example...
#interface GCTurnBasedMatchHelper : NSObject {
BOOL gameCenterAvailable;
BOOL userAuthenticated;
}
#property (assign, readonly) BOOL gameCenterAvailable;
Defining the variables in the brackets simply declares them instance variables.
Declaring (and synthesizing) a property generates getters and setters for the instance variable, according to the criteria within the parenthesis. This is particularly important in Objective-C because it is often by way of getters and setters that memory is managed (e.g., when a value is assigned to an ivar, it is by way of the setter that the object assigned is retained and ultimately released). Beyond a memory management strategy, the practice also promotes encapsulation and reduces the amount of trivial code that would otherwise be required.
It is very common to declare an ivar in brackets and then an associated property (as in your example), but that isn't strictly necessary. Defining the property and synthesizing is all that's required, because synthesizing the property implicitly also creates an ivar.
The approach currently suggested by Apple (in templates) is:
Define property in header file, e.g.:
#property (assign, readonly) gameCenter;
Then synthesize & declare ivar in implementation:
#synthesize gameCenter = __gameCenter;
The last line synthesizes the gameCenter property and asserts that whatever value is assigned to the property will be stored in the __gameCenter ivar. Again, this isn't necessary, but by defining the ivar next to the synthesizer, you are reducing the locations where you have to type the name of the ivar while still explicitly naming it.
{
BOOL gameCenterAvailable;
BOOL userAuthenticated;
}
the above two are called member Variables
They can't be accessed outside the class.(Important point) (unless you provide custom getters and setters)
if you make a #property then the variable can be read inside the class as well as outside the class..so the setters and getters are generated for you..automatically
then declaring the same as a member variable isn't required..
It is just done to increase Readability .. you can read it easily than reading
#property (non..)
When you define a property a getter and setter is created for you. When you access them usingobject.member setters and getters are called automatically.
When you declare variable in interface setters and getters are not written for you. you can also specify some visibility modifiers to them like #private,#public etc.