I am trying to define a protocol method without adding parameters but couldn't find the correct syntax.
Here is the definition (it has a syntax error)
- (void)cameraOverlayView:(CameraOverlayView *)cameraOverlay didTakePhoto;
I don't want to pass any values with the second parameter. My aim is only to signal that something happened to the delegate instance.
How should I write the definition?
Your the second part of the method is not formatted correctly:
- (void)cameraOverlayView:(CameraOverlayView *)cameraOverlay didTakePhoto;
Because of the space, it's expecting a parameter. Instead, work the didTakePhoto part into the method name, like:
- (void)cameraOverlayViewDidTakePhoto:(CameraOverlayView *)cameraOverlay;
- (void)cameraOverlayViewDidTakePhoto:(CameraOverlayView *)cameraOverlay;
basically in objective c you can't have method name parts dangling after parameters...
so:
illegal:
-(void)methodWith:(int)theInt forMyMom;
normal:
-(void)methodForMyMomWithInt:(int)theInt;
legal but strange
-(void)method:(int)theInt :(int)theOtherInt;
with the selector: #selector(method::)
This is an issue of Objective-C convention. You could rewrite it as:
- (void)cameraOverlayView:(CameraOverlayView *)cameraOverlayViewDidTakePhoto;
Related
I am still studying for passing function as parameter.
Currently, I can do like this.
- (void)getLocation:(void (^)(CLLocation *location))didUpdateLocation andTimeOut:(void (^)(void))timeout andDidFailUpdate:(void (^)(void))didFailUpdate
What I want to know is that "didUpdateLocation" can have multiple parameter? (Instead of just CLLocation *location) ? Currently, I can't find about syntax for that.
Since this is a block you have defined yourself, it can have as many parameters as you want. Just add the parameter you want to the parameter list of the block like this:
- (void)getLocation:(void (^)(CLLocation *location, NSString *otherParameter))didUpdateLocation andTimeOut:(void (^)(void))timeout andDidFailUpdate:(void (^)(void))didFailUpdate
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:.
If you take this method call for instance(from other post)
- (int)methodName:(int)arg1 withArg2:(int)arg2
{
// Do something crazy!
return someInt;
}
Is withArg2 actually ever used for anything inside this method ?
withArg2 is part of the method name (it is usually written without arguments as methodName:withArg2: if you want to refer to the method in the documentation), so no, it is not used for anything inside the method.
As Tamás points out, withArg2 is part of the method name. If you write a function with the exact same name in C, it will look like this:
int methodNamewithArg2(int arg1, int arg2)
{
// Do something crazy!
return someInt;
}
Coming from other programming languages, the Objective-C syntax at first might appear weird, but after a while you will start to understand how it makes your whole code more expressive. If you see the following C++ function call:
anObject.subString("foobar", 2, 3, true);
and compare it to a similar Objective-C method invocation
[anObject subString:"foobar" startingAtCharacter:2 numberOfCharacters:3 makeResultUpperCase:YES];
it should become clear what I mean. The example may be contrived, but the point is to show that embedding the meaning of the next parameter into the method name allows to write very readable code. Even if you choose horrible variable names or use literals (as in the example above), you will still be able to make sense of the code without having to look up the method documentation.
You would call this method as follows:
int i=[self methodName:arg1 withArg2:arg2];
This is just iOs's way of making the code easier to read.
I'm trying to call a method within a class, assuming I only know its name (aka, a char vector with its name)
I tried calling str2func(['obj.' functionName]) - where functionName is the name of that method, without any luck - I can't seem to grab the handle of the method.
You can reference it like a field
obj.(functionName)
or using feval
feval(functionName, obj, ...)
I recommend the first option.
In programming (and math) there are variables and constants. Is there a name to describe both of them?
I was thinking value, but that's not it. A value is what variables/constants contain, not what they are.
I would call it a symbol. From google:
sym·bol/ˈsimbəl/Noun
1. A thing that represents or stands for something else,
esp. a material object representing something abstract.
...
From what I know Its called a field
How about:
maths and logic: term
programming: l-value and r-value.
There are a few different terms I use, depending on context. I'll give you a list of the terms I (might) use - sometimes I'll just default to calling everything 'variables'.
Field - a variable or constant that's declared as part of the class definition.
Parameter - one of the inputs specified when defining a method in a class.
Argument - the actual value that you provide for a parameter when calling a method.
Method variable - a variable declared inside a method.
Method constant - a constant declared inside a method.
In OOP, the attribute can be both a variable and a constant.
Identifiers
In computer languages, identifiers are tokens (also called symbols) which name language entities. Some of the kinds of entities an identifier might denote include variables, types, labels, subroutines, and packages.
Symbols are super set of Identifiers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifier#In_computer_languages
How about "data item"?
One definition: https://www.yourdictionary.com/data-item
Example showing it can be used for local variables/constants as well (unlike "field" or "attribute"): https://www.microfocus.com/documentation/visual-cobol/VC222/EclWin/GUID-A3B817EE-1D63-4F67-A62C-61DE681C6719.html