I'm working on building an iOS 6 app.
I have a class TDBeam which inherits from superclass TDWeapon.
The superclass TDWeapon declares a #property in the TDWeapon.h file:
#interface TDWeapon : UIView
#property (nonatomic) int damage;
#end
I do not explicitly #synthesize the property, as I'm letting Xcode automatically do so.
In the subclass TDBeam I override the getter in the TDBeam.m file:
#import "TDBeam.h"
#implementation TDBeam
- (int)damage {
return _damage;
}
#end
Xcode auto-completes the getter method name, as expected. But when I attempt to reference the _damage instance variable (inherited from the superclass), I get a compiler error:
Use of undeclared identifier '_damage'
What am I doing wrong here? I've tried explicitly adding #synthesize, and changing the name of the _damage ivar, but the compiler doesn't "see" it or any other ivars from the superclass. I thought ivars were visible and accessible from subclasses?
Synthesized ivars are not visible to subclasses, whether they are explicitly or automatically created: What is the visibility of #synthesized instance variables? Since they are effectively declared in the implementation file, their declaration isn't included in the "translation unit" that includes the subclass.
If you really want to access that ivar directly, you'll have to explicitly declare it (in its default "protected" form) somewhere that the subclass can see it, such as a class extension of the superclass in a private header.
There are a lot of posts on this topic on Stack Overflow, none of which offer simple concrete advice, but this topic sums it up most succinctly, and Josh's answer is the best in any.
What he kinda stops short of saying outright, is, if this is the kind of thing you want to do, don't use #property at all. Declare your regular protected variable in your base class as he says, and write you're own setters and getters if you need them. The ivar will be visible to any subclasses who can then write their own setters/getters.
At least that's where i've landed on the issue, although I'd a total newb to subclassing.
The idea of creating private headers to host your anonymous category and re-#sythesizing your ivars in your subclass just seems wrong on so many levels. I'm also sure I've probably missed some fundamental point somewhere.
Edit
Okay after some lost sleep, and inspired by Stanford's 2013 iTunes U course, here I believe is an example solution to this problem.
MYFoo.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface MYFoo : NSObject
// Optional, depending on your class
#property (strong, nonatomic, readonly) NSString * myProperty;
- (NSString *)makeValueForNewMyProperty; //override this in your subclass
#end
MYFoo.m
#import "MYFoo.h"
#interface MYFoo ()
#property (strong, nonatomic, readwrite) NSString * myProperty;
#end
#implementation MYFoo
// Base class getter, generic
- (NSDateComponents *)myProperty {
if (!_myProperty) {
_myProperty = [self makeValueForNewMyProperty];
}
return _myProperty;
}
// Replace this method in your subclass with your logic on how to create a new myProperty
- (NSString *)makeValueForNewMyProperty {
// If this is an abstract base class, we'd return nil and/or throw an exception
NSString * newMyProperty = [[NSString alloc]init];
// Do stuff to make the property the way you need it...
return newMyProperty;
}
#end
Then you just replace makeValueForNewMyProperty in your subclass with whatever custom logic you need. Your property is 'protected' in the base class but you have control over how it is created, which is basically what you are trying to achieve in most cases.
If your makeValueForNewMyProperty method requires access to other ivars of the base class, they will, at the very least, have to be be public readonly properties (or just naked ivars).
Not exactly 'over-ridding a getter' but it achieves the same sort of thing, with a little thought. My apologies if, in trying to make the example generic, some elegance and clarity has been lost.
Related
Is there any difference in behaviour - either at compile time or at run time - between this code...
// MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property (nonatomic) SomeType myProperty;
#end
// MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass
#end
... and this code?
// MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
-(SomeType)myProperty;
-(void)setMyProperty:(SomeType)myProperty;
#end
// MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass {
SomeType _myProperty;
}
-(SomeType)myProperty {
return _myProperty;
}
-(void)setMyProperty:(SomeType)myProperty {
_myProperty = myProperty;
}
#end
Obviously, the former version is more succinct and readable, but is there any difference in behavior? Do the synthesized getter and setter do anything more sophisticated than my straightforward implementation here? Is the declaration of a property distinguishable by introspection functions from declaration of a getter and setter? Are there any other differences I haven't thought of?
Short answer: No difference. However, some property attributes (copy or atomic) may require different accessor methods.
Long answer: There is a group of introspection functions that allow you to access all #properties declared for given class or protocol:
class_getProperty
class_copyPropertyList
protocol_getProperty
protocol_copyPropertyList
property_getName
property_getAttributes
I don't think any of these functions is useful in production code, because this is basically an implementation detail of the class. Also, there may be a getter/setter exposed in the public interface and a private property hidden in class extension.
Oh, and there's one other difference: Xcode highlights properties and plain getters differently :)
One difference is memory management. You can configure your properties to for example copy the object being set or to use a weak variable. Your code seem to be assuming ARC is active, since you are not releasing the old object and retaining the new object.
Before ARC a typical setter would to something like
-(void)setMyProperty:(SomeType *)myProperty {
if (myProperty == _myProperty) return;
[_myProperty release];
_myProperty = myProperty;
[_myProperty retain];
}
When you say you use ARC, then there is only a small difference. But none that matters.
Your ivar is #protected.
A #property creates an ivar which is #private.
Generally speaking:
So when you subclass, it is possible for your subclass to directly access the ivar you created, but not the one the property created.
BUT since you put your ivar in the #implementation block, the ivar is never seen by the subclass.
Without ARC however and SomeType being not an Objective-C object, there is a big difference. Then your setter/getter wouldn't have retain/release messages included.
I'd like to do the following, in an abstract way:
// .h
#interface SomeObject : NSObject
#property (readonly) NSArray myProperty;
#end
// .m
#interface SomeObject ()
#property (readwrite) NSMutableArray myProperty;
#end
#implementation SomeObject
#end
According to the section Subclassing with Properties in the Mac Developer Library it is allowed to overwrite readonly properties with readwrite. What doesn't work is using a subclass for the property type. I used NSMutableArray as an example, but it could be any other class/subclass combination.
According to inheritance rules, it should be ok though. readonly just generates the getter which also is allowed to return a subclass object.
How do you tackle such cases when you need a subclass type for some property for internal use?
An ugly way would be the following, but I'd like to avoid that as it means that I cannot use the self. getters and setters when accessing subclass methods.
// .h
#interface SomeObject : NSObject
#property (readonly) NSArray myProperty;
#end
// .m
#implementation SomeObject {
NSMutableArray _myProperty;
}
#synthesize myProperty = _myProperty;
#end
EDIT (based on your edits): Your specific case after the edit is a somewhat special and common case (if it can be both at the same time), and requires some careful consideration.
The reason this is a special is because the subclass is a mutable form of the exposed class. The caller may expect that it will not change after receiving it. But if you hand back your internal object, then it might mutate. You have several options:
Return an immutable copy. This is often the best solution for small collections. It's certainly the simplest. But if the accessor may be called often and the collection is large, it can be prohibitively expensive.
Make your internal property immutable. If requests for the property are much more common than changes to the property, it can be more efficient to recreate the object when it mutates (using arrayByAddingObject:, subarrayWithRange: and the like).
Warn the caller that the object being returned may change.... uggh... I've done this in one case where I needed the performance, but it's quite dangerous.
I've never actually done it this way, but you could also create your own copy-on-write this way: Return the mutable version directly and mark a flag that it is now "dirty." When mutation is required internally, make a mutable copy and store it in your property (letting go of the old collection). This seems a lot of complexity, but might be useful for some situations, particularly if reads and writes tend to clump separately (lots of reads followed by lots of writes).
OLD ANSWER based on NSObject vs. NSString:
I assume your goal here is to make myProperty be of some opaque type, rather than leaking the fact that it is an NSString? Perhaps so you can change your mind later on how it's actually implemented? There are a few options. The easiest is to define it of type id. Then internally just treat it as a string. id can be anything. It is usually preferred over NSObject*.
If you want more type-safety internally, then you can create a private property with another name of type NSString and return it for myProperty like this:
SomeObject.h
#interface SomeObject : NSObject
#property (readonly) id myProperty;
#end
SomeObject.m
#interface SomeObject ()
#property (readwrite) NSString *myInternalProperty;
#end
#implementation SomeObject
- (id)myProperty {
return myInternalProperty;
}
#end
Another hiding technique you can use (if hiding is very important to you) is a subclass. For example:
SomeObject.h
#class MyOpaque;
#interface SomeObject : NSObject
#property (readonly) MyOpaque *myProperty;
#end
SomeObject.m
#interface MyOpaque : NSString
#end
#implementation MyOpaque
#end
#implementation SomeObject
#end
Since the caller does not have an #interface definition for MyOpaque, he can't send messages to it without a compiler warning.
How do you tackle such cases when you need a subclass type for some
property for internal use?
Properties are explicitly not for internal use, they are members of a public interface.
If you need an internal value define a member field and override the setter of the property to set your internal value.
If you have a property in your public interface like the following
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property(strong) NSString *myProp;
#end
And then synthesize it, in effect synthesizing the variable:
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize myProp = _myProp; // or just leave it at the default name..
#end
What is the visibility of the instance variable _myProp? That is, is this considered #public, #protected or #private? I'm guessing since MySubClass could inherit from MyClass then it would also get the properties (naturally), but would it also inherit the instance variable visibility?
What difference does it make if I put the property in a class extension? That would hide the property from subclasses, and I'm guessing the instance variable, too. Is this documented anywhere?
A synthesized ivar is completely invisible to all code that cannot see the #synthesize line (which basically means anything outside of the .m file). It's not #protected, it's not #private, it's simply unknown. With a #private ivar, other code trying to access it will be told that it's private, but with a synthesized ivar, other code trying to access it will be told that the field simply doesn't exist.
As a thought experiment, try imagining a situation where the ivar acted like it was #protected. You make a subclass, and you muck about with the ivar there. Now you go back to the superclass and change #synthesize myProp to #synthesize myProp=foo. What happens in the subclass? When the compiler processes the subclass, it cannot see the #synthesize line, so it would have no idea that you just changed the name of the ivar. In fact, it cannot even tell if the property is backed by an ivar at all, or if it's implemented with custom-written accessor methods. I hope it's obvious why this means that the subclass cannot possibly access the ivar, and neither can any other class.
That said, I'm not quite sure what the compiler does if you write code in the same .m file that tries to access the ivar. I expect it will treat the ivar as #private (since the compiler can, in fact, see that the ivar exists).
Also, none of this has any bearing on the runtime methods. Other classes can still use the obj-c runtime methods to dynamically look up your class's ivar list and muck about with it.
If it is declared in your interface it is virtually public when using the #property declarative. If you want to use #property declaratives and keep them property truly private, you should create a private category in your implementation.
MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject {
#private
NSObject* foo;
}
#end
MyClass.m
#import "ClassWithPrivateProperty.h"
#interface MyClass ()
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSObject* foo;
#end
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize foo;
// class implementation...
#end
A synthesized variable acts as if declared #private:
#interface Garble : NSObject
#property (copy) NSString * s;
#end
#implementation Garble
#synthesize s;
#end
#interface Bargle : Garble
#end
#implementation Bargle
- (void) useS {
NSLog(#"%#", s); // error: instance variable 's' is private
}
#end
I swear I've seen this in the docs, but I can't find it right now. Will update if I track it down.
You can create a dynamic property and indicate it to the compiler that its instantiation would be at run time.
And then in your subclass write your own getter or synthesize the property.
#interface BaseClass : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSString *ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses;
#end
#implementation BaseClass
#dynamic ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses;
#end
In Sub classes
#interface Subclass : BaseClass
#end
#implementation Subclass
#synthesize ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses = _ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses;
#end
or you write your own setter / getter methods.
Hope this helps !
Other classes have access to everything that they #include. In other words, to everything that is inside your header.
If something appears only in your implementation file, other classes (including subclasses) don't know it exists. A synthesized property is like that. Other classes know only about the property (a property means a getter and a setter method) but they don't know anything about the inner implementation of its methods.
Note, that the access specifiers (public/private/protected) in obj-c are only a hint to the compiler that even if something appears in the header file, it can't be accessed. The runtime does not check it in any way.
What happens if you put it into a class extension? Note that a property is a set of two methods. You just hide the methods from every class which includes your class main header but not the class extension header.
We use this for example to declare a property as readonly and in class continuation we declare it as readwrite. Then, we can use the setter only from inside of the class.
this is my first post; this site has been an invaluable resource.
I'm fairly new to objective-c so please bear with.
So I have a base class with a few properties which I want "private" so I made them readonly. To be clear, I don't want them mutable externally, but I DO wan't to use the 'set' accessor within this class. So...
// .h file
#interface Vehicle
#property (nonatomic, readonly) int speed;
#end
Also I repeated the property declaration within a category interface block to make the accessors writable in this class
// .m file
//Private properties and methods
#interface Vehicle()
#property (nonatomic, readwrite) int speed;
#end
#implementation
#synthesize speed = _speed;
- (void) someMethod {
[self setSpeed:10]; // Works fine
}
#end
But now if I inherit this class the derived class no longer has the set accessor method (setSpeed in my case). Do I need to synthesize again? Seems like that would defeat the purpose of inheritence. I know i can modify the instance variable directly (_speed = 10;) but would rather not. I'm sure there's something wrong with my understanding. Thanks!
// Example
#interface Ship : Vehicle
#end
#implementation
- (void) someOtherMethod {
[self setSpeed: 2]; // DOES NOT WORK, would like it to
}
#end
But now if I inherit this class the derived class no longer has the set accessor method (setSpeed in my case).
Actually, it does have the set accessor, it's just that the compiler doesn't know about it. You have a choice:
put the class extension (the #interface Vehicle() .... #end bit in a separate header file that gets imported into the .m for Vehicle and its subclasses (or use a category)
redeclare the read/write property in a class extension for the subclass. To avoid a warning, use #dynamic speed in the subclass's implementation.
Since there is no such thing as 'protected' methods, you need to create a private shared header where your anonymous category goes. Then both your original implementation and your derived classes include this header to get access to this 'private' stuff.
If you have a property in your public interface like the following
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property(strong) NSString *myProp;
#end
And then synthesize it, in effect synthesizing the variable:
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize myProp = _myProp; // or just leave it at the default name..
#end
What is the visibility of the instance variable _myProp? That is, is this considered #public, #protected or #private? I'm guessing since MySubClass could inherit from MyClass then it would also get the properties (naturally), but would it also inherit the instance variable visibility?
What difference does it make if I put the property in a class extension? That would hide the property from subclasses, and I'm guessing the instance variable, too. Is this documented anywhere?
A synthesized ivar is completely invisible to all code that cannot see the #synthesize line (which basically means anything outside of the .m file). It's not #protected, it's not #private, it's simply unknown. With a #private ivar, other code trying to access it will be told that it's private, but with a synthesized ivar, other code trying to access it will be told that the field simply doesn't exist.
As a thought experiment, try imagining a situation where the ivar acted like it was #protected. You make a subclass, and you muck about with the ivar there. Now you go back to the superclass and change #synthesize myProp to #synthesize myProp=foo. What happens in the subclass? When the compiler processes the subclass, it cannot see the #synthesize line, so it would have no idea that you just changed the name of the ivar. In fact, it cannot even tell if the property is backed by an ivar at all, or if it's implemented with custom-written accessor methods. I hope it's obvious why this means that the subclass cannot possibly access the ivar, and neither can any other class.
That said, I'm not quite sure what the compiler does if you write code in the same .m file that tries to access the ivar. I expect it will treat the ivar as #private (since the compiler can, in fact, see that the ivar exists).
Also, none of this has any bearing on the runtime methods. Other classes can still use the obj-c runtime methods to dynamically look up your class's ivar list and muck about with it.
If it is declared in your interface it is virtually public when using the #property declarative. If you want to use #property declaratives and keep them property truly private, you should create a private category in your implementation.
MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject {
#private
NSObject* foo;
}
#end
MyClass.m
#import "ClassWithPrivateProperty.h"
#interface MyClass ()
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSObject* foo;
#end
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize foo;
// class implementation...
#end
A synthesized variable acts as if declared #private:
#interface Garble : NSObject
#property (copy) NSString * s;
#end
#implementation Garble
#synthesize s;
#end
#interface Bargle : Garble
#end
#implementation Bargle
- (void) useS {
NSLog(#"%#", s); // error: instance variable 's' is private
}
#end
I swear I've seen this in the docs, but I can't find it right now. Will update if I track it down.
You can create a dynamic property and indicate it to the compiler that its instantiation would be at run time.
And then in your subclass write your own getter or synthesize the property.
#interface BaseClass : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSString *ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses;
#end
#implementation BaseClass
#dynamic ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses;
#end
In Sub classes
#interface Subclass : BaseClass
#end
#implementation Subclass
#synthesize ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses = _ThisWillBeSynthesizedInRespectiveSubclasses;
#end
or you write your own setter / getter methods.
Hope this helps !
Other classes have access to everything that they #include. In other words, to everything that is inside your header.
If something appears only in your implementation file, other classes (including subclasses) don't know it exists. A synthesized property is like that. Other classes know only about the property (a property means a getter and a setter method) but they don't know anything about the inner implementation of its methods.
Note, that the access specifiers (public/private/protected) in obj-c are only a hint to the compiler that even if something appears in the header file, it can't be accessed. The runtime does not check it in any way.
What happens if you put it into a class extension? Note that a property is a set of two methods. You just hide the methods from every class which includes your class main header but not the class extension header.
We use this for example to declare a property as readonly and in class continuation we declare it as readwrite. Then, we can use the setter only from inside of the class.