How can you use a Objective C method as an argument for glutDisplayFunc (and functions like it)? I'm quite new to ObjC, so I don't completely know how this works
In C++, you can just pass in a void, but in ObjC, I tried this:
//...
glutDisplayFunc([self display]);
//...
-(void) display{
glutPostRedisplay();
}
I've also tried static methods
//...
glutDisplayFunc([self display]);
//...
+(void) display{
glutPostRedisplay();
}
but every time I get the error "passing 'void' to parameter with incompatible type void(*)(void)".
I thought you could just pass in a void.
So, how can I make this work (it has to be a method)
In C++, you can just pass in a void
No, you can't.
So, how can I make this work (it has to be a method)
You can't. What you're interested in would be as something known as closure or delegate, but GLUT will just take global scope C style callback functions. The best thing you could to was write a global scope wrapper with a calling convention compatible to C, which then calls the method of a global scope class instance.
Related
How can I solve the following case?
interface I
class A(i: I)
class C : I, A(this) // << --- 'this' is not defined in this context
In short, I want to pass the class instance to super class constructor.
Is it possible in Kotlin?
P.S.
All the answers are good and technically correct. But let's give a concrete example:
interface Pilot {
fun informAboutObstacle()
}
abstract class Car(private val pilot: Pilot) {
fun drive() {
while (true) {
// ....
if (haveObstacleDetected()) {
pilot.informAboutObstacle()
}
// ....
}
}
fun break() {
// stop the car
}
}
class AutopilotCar : Pilot, Car(this) { // For example, Tesla :)
override fun informAboutObstacle() {
break() // stop the car
}
}
This example don't look too contrived, and why can't I implement it with OOP-friendly language?
No, this is not possible on the JVM. this is only available after the super class has been initialized.
From
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se9/html/jvms-4.html#jvms-4.10.2.4
The instance initialization method (ยง2.9.1) for class myClass sees the new uninitialized object as its this argument in local variable 0. Before that method invokes another instance initialization method of myClass or its direct superclass on this, the only operation the method can perform on this is assigning fields declared within myClass.
So the bytecode instruction aload 0 to push this on the stack is forbidden before the super-class constructor is called. That's why it cannot be passed as an argument to the super-constructor.
Kotlin was born as a JVM language and aims for maximum interoperability with Java code and a minimum overhead of its language features. While Kotlin could have chosen to orchestrate object initialization in a different way, it would create problems in mixed Java-Kotlin class hierarchies and add significant overhead.
In the good tradition of OOP languages such as Java, C# or Swift, Kotlin doesn't allow you to leak the this reference before the call to superclass initialization has completed. In your special case you're just storing the reference, but in just a slightly different case the superclass code might try to use the received object, which at that point is still uninitialized.
As a specific example of why languages don't allow this, consider a case where A is a class from a library you use and this rule is not in effect. You pass this like you do and things work fine. Later you update the library to a newer version and it happens to add something as benign as i.toString() to its constructor. It has no idea it's actually calling an overridden method on itself. Your toString() implementation observes all its invariants broken, such as uninitialized vals.
This design suffers from other problems, not just the circular initialization dependency you are struggling with now. In a nutshell, the class A expects this:
But instead you create this:
The class A has a dependency on a collaborator object of type I. It doesn't expect itself as the collaborator. This may bring about all kinds of weird bugs. For example your C.toString() may delegate to super.toString() and A.toString() (A is the super of C) may call into I.toString(), resulting in a StackOverflowError.
I can't say from your question whether A is designed for extension, which would make the C : A part correct, but you should definitely disentangle A from I.
I'm attempting to create a class in Swift 3 to implement a Cordova plugin. I have this building and running, but the application crashes whenever any properties of the class are accessed. I've tried two ways of initializing the class:
#objc(DSFMediaCentre)
class DSFMediaCentre : CDVPlugin
{
var players = [UUID:DSFPlayerHandler] ();
...
}
and
#objc(DSFMediaCentre)
class DSFMediaCentre : CDVPlugin
{
var players :[UUID:DSFPlayerHandler];
override init () {
players = [:];
}
...
}
However, when my players property is used, the result is a EXC_BAD_ACCESS exception, with an address that looks like a null pointer dereference.
The object is being created by Objective C code, which is a language I have no familiarity with at all, but I think this is the line that creates it:
obj = [[NSClassFromString(className)alloc] initWithWebViewEngine:_webViewEngine];
The CDVPlugin class contains a comment stating that initWithWebViewEngine should not be overridden (and indeed I do not seem to be able to override this method, because while it is declared in the CDVPlugin.m file, it isn't mentioned in CDVPlugin.h, so the Swift compiler doesn't seem to know about it), but rather initialization code should be placed in a method called pluginInitialize instead. However, if I do that I get a compiler error ("Class DSFMediaCentre has no initializers").
Furthermore, if I put my init() method back in and set it to call pluginInitialize(), like this:
override init () {
super.init(); // necessary otherwise next line is an error
pluginInitialize();
}
override func pluginInitialize() {
players = [:];
}
the error then changes to "Property 'self.players' not initialized at super.init call".
How do I make this class initialize correctly?
You have a mismatch between the strict initialization system required by the language and the procedure used by the framework you're working with.
Swift demands that a) properties be initialized as part of object construction, and b) that construction be chained to the type's supertype. But the CDVPlugin type is doing the construction on your behalf; you don't have the ability to customize it. (This makes more sense in ObjC, because it doesn't have the same compile-time restrictions as Swift.)
The situation is similar to unpacking an object from a nib file. In that case too, because it's the nib loading system that's constructing your object, you don't have the ability to customize the initializer. Your type will always be constructed by init(coder:). In a certain sense, your initialization point moves further down, to awakeFromNib(), and among other things, that forces outlets to other objects in the archive to be declared as optional, usually implicitly unwrapped.
The same solution should avail you here. You should consider pluginInitialize() to be your initialization point. The language then requires that properties be optional, since they are not filled at its initialization point. Therefore, make the property an IUO:
#objc(DSFMediaCentre)
class DSFMediaCentre : CDVPlugin
{
var players :[UUID:DSFPlayerHandler]!
override func pluginInitialize() {
players = [:];
}
}
and all should be well.
The other solution is to use lazy keyword
lazy var players :[UUID:DSFPlayerHandler] = [:]
So, you don't need to initialize players in initializer but still make sure players always non-nulable
I found an example for IOKit:
var notification:io_object_t
let matching:NSDictionary = IOServiceNameMatching("IODisplayWrangler").takeRetainedValue()
let displayWrangler = IOServiceGetMatchingService(kIOMasterPortDefault, matching)
let notificationPort = IONotificationPortCreate(kIOMasterPortDefault)
IOServiceAddInterestNotification(notificationPort, displayWrangler, kIOGeneralInterest, displayPowerNotificationsCallback, nil, ¬ification)
CFRunLoopAddSource (CFRunLoopGetCurrent(), IONotificationPortGetRunLoopSource(notificationPort), kCFRunLoopDefaultMode);
IOObjectRelease (displayWrangler);
The above example is clear to me - so far. But IOServiceAddInteresNotification wants a callback function. In it's simple to do this, by implementing the C-Style function somewhere in the .m-file.
The documentation says that I have to use a callback of type IOServiceInterestCallback.
In C-Style it is defined as follows:
typedef void ( *IOServiceInterestCallback)( void *refcon, io_service_t service, uint32_t messageType, void *messageArgument );
And on objC everything seems to work out perfectly.
What is the equivalent solution in swift? How do I declare the callback function without creating a C or objC file for this?
Any ideas?
Cheers,
Jack
You cannot create C function like callbacks in Swift as closures are not compatible with CFunctionPointer. You can implement some workaround in Objective-C or C. Example is describe in Objective-C Wrapper for CFunctionPointer to a Swift Closure
Xcode is expecting a ')' just before the YES
[_creep scheduleOnce:#selector(removeFromParentAndCleanup:YES) delay:2.0f];
Sorry if it seems basic stuff... I just started ObjectiveC.
Because the Cocos API limits you to one selector with 1 argument (ccTime), write your own method that passes the given arguments to the proper function:
-(void)doneWithSomething {
[self scheduleOnce:#selector(removeAndCleanup:) delay:2.0f];
}
-(void)removeAndCleanup:(ccTime)delta {
[ _creep removeFromParentAndCleanup:YES];
}
You cannot pass arguments in the #selector() directive because it directly correlates to an entry in either a vTable (for common methods) or an entry in the ObjC sel cache, so the compiler thinks you're trying to invoke an impossibly named method called -removeFromParentAndCleanup:YES
Compiling in XCode 3.1.3 using GCC 4, under Leopard 10.5.8, with 10.5 as my target...
I have an interface, thus:
#interface testThing : NSObject { classContaininghooHa *ttv; }
#end
And an implementation, thus:
#implementation: testThing
- (void) instanceMethodMine
{
[ttv hooHa]; // works perfectly, compiles, links, hooHa is invoked.
}
// void cFunctionMine()
// {
// [ttv hooHa]; // compiler: 'ttv' undeclared (first use in this function) "
// }
void stupidCFunctionMine((testThing *)whom) // whom is passed class 'self' when invoked
{
[whom instanceMethodMine]; // compiles, links, works. :/
}
#end
Now, my understanding -- clearly flawed -- was that if you declared a variable, class ID or otherwise, it was private to the class, but within the class, is performed essentially as a global, stored in the allocated class instance for the duration of its existence.
That's how it acts for objc methods.
But in the c function above, also written within the class, the variable appears to be invisible. The doesn't make sense to me, but there it is.
Can someone explain to me what is going on?
While you're at it, how can I declare this as an instance variable so I can use the method within a c function declared within the class scope as shown above, as well as within methods?
Insight much appreciated.
It doesn't make any difference where you are declaring/defining your "normal" c functions. They are not part of the class, they are just plain old c functions. No connection to the class whatsoever. Passing the instance they work on is a workaround if you really don't want to make this function a true objective-c method.
interface methods have full access to it's member variables. And the C function is not part of the class and so it cannot access any class variables unless it takes an class instance as the argument.
void cFunctionMine()
{
[ttv hooHa]; // compiler: 'ttv' undeclared (first use in this function)
}
Clearly cFunctionMine is not part of the interface. So it does not what ttv is to send the message hooHa.
While you're at it, how can I declare this as an instance variable so I can use the method within a c function declared within the class scope as shown above, as well as within methods?
void cFunctionMine()
{
// 1. Create an instance using alloc and init
testThing *ttv = [ [testThing alloc] init ] ;
[ttv hooHa] ;
// Now the above statement is valid. We have a valid instance to which
// message can be passed to.
// .....
[ ttv release ] ;
// release the resources once you are done to prevent memory leaks.
}