In Java you can put in multiple constructors to a class that are called depending on the types and/or number of parameters that are used when an instance is constructed.
I assume that there is the equivalent in Objective C.
Can I have a polymorphic method?
I would like to build a method that acts slightly differently according to whether a string is passed or a double?
Does that sound bonkers or is it easy?
You're thinking of overloaded methods. Due to the way dynamic dispatch is implemented in Objective-C, it isn't currently possible to pass two unrelated types as arguments to the same (or same-named) method and have it understand.
In Objective-C, there are two related but distinct approaches to handling multiple kinds of input. Let's use your example of a string or a double as possible inputs. In Java, you might have:
void applyWidget(String s);
void applyWidget(double d);
And that's great, but not Objective-C. In Objective-C, you instead would use two different method names:
- (void)applyWidgetWithName: (NSString *)name;
- (void)applyWidgetWithValue: (double)value;
The same logic is in each method as in the Java version, but the distinct names let the compiler treat them as distinct methods (which they are, even in Java.) The code also becomes self-documenting: by reading it, you get an idea of what's happening even without comments. Alternatively, if you simply must have one method name, you change the parameter type to id and accept any object:
- (void)applyWidget: (id)widget;
Then pass either an NSString or an NSNumber wrapping your double. Then, in the implementation of the method, use Objective-C's introspection methods to determine how to proceed:
if ([widget isKindOfClass: [NSString class]]) {
...
} else if ([widget isKindOfClass: [NSNumber class]]) {
double d = [widget doubleValue];
...
}
This approach essentially tells callers "send anything--I'll handle it appropriately." It can be difficult to determine the behaviour of such a method without extensive documentation.
Absolutely easy:
- (id)initWithSomeObject:(id)object
{
if ([object isKindOfClass:[ClassOne class]) {
// do something
} else if ([object isKindOfClass:[ClassTwo class]) {
// do something else
} // etc.
return self;
}
yes, but objc does not have proper overloading.
so you see things like initWithDouble:, initWithBool: and so on. that's part of the reason it's a bit 'wordy' for some people's taste.
to use your example:
#interface MONClass
- (id)initWithString:(NSString *)pString;
- (id)initWithDouble:(double)pDouble;
...
but the following is an error:
- (id)initWith:(NSString *)pString;
- (id)initWith:(double)pDouble;
because the selector is the same -- the parameter/return types are omitted from the selector.
Basically Objective C does't have proper method overloading. It will support overriding only.
Suppose if you write functions like in same class,
(void) showMethod;
(void) showMethod:(int) aNumber;
This will support in Objective C.
Suppose if you write functions like,
(void) showMethod:(NSString*) aString;
(void) showMethod:(int) aNumber;
In this way the compiler gives Error because there conflicting parameter types in implementation of showMethod.
Related
I am an absolute beginner in objective-c and just read an overview of the language on cocoadevcentral.
The first section briefly discusses syntax for calling methods and gives two examples; one for calling a method on an object and the second is a method with input being called on an object,
[object method];
[object methodWithInput: input];
Can anyone explain the difference to me, possibly with a simple example?
There is no huge difference between the two and all depends on what you are doing.
Method 1
[object method];
There are two parts to this method.
object this is either an instance of a class or is a class itself all depends on the type of method you are calling whether it be an instance method or a class method. Each are declared differently.
A Class method is declared like + (void)myClassMethod; and would be called like [NSString myClassMethod];
An Instance method would be declared like - (void)myInstanceMethod; and would be called like [myStr myInstanceMethod]; (Where myStr is an instace of NSString)
method The second part is the actual method that you are calling this all that this will do when you call something like [myStr myInstanceMethod]; it will call the implementation of that method so it would call
- (void)myInstanceMethod
{
NSLog(#"We called our instance method");
}
Method 2
[object methodWithInput: input];
The only difference here is that we are passing in an argument. So here we have three parts the same first two from method 1 and the argument
input All this is, is the value that you are passing into the method to be used within it.
This type of method would be declared something like - (void)myInstanceMethodWithArgument:(NSString *)str;. Here are just saying that we have an argument of type NSString so when we call this like [str myInstanceMethod:#"Some Random String I want to pass in"]; it will run the following implementation code
- (void)myInstanceMethod:(NSString *)str
{
NSLog(#"My str value is : %#", str);
}
Method 3
[object methodWithInput1:input1 andInput2:input2];
Just throwing this in because you my get a little confused later when dealing with multiple arguments. This is exactly the same as method 2 except it has two arguments and not one. This would be declared like - (void)myInstanceMethodWithInput1:(NSString *)str1 andInput2:(NSString *)str2;. Does exactly the same is method 2 except it has multiple arguments that's it nothing to be scared of.
I would recommend that you have a read of the Apple Coding Guidelines for Cocoa. Best of look with learning as it's probably not the easiest language to learn.
Try substituting 'input' for 'argument'..
[object someMethod:(CGFloat )floatArgument];
The type should be there in the brackets, with a dereference operator (*) eg (NSObject *)theArgument if that argument is a pointer.
So basically some methods supply one or more arguments, and some do not, just as with C
When you call method without input data it means that method will work with already existing class's properties.
- (void)someMethod {
self.var_1 = self.var_2 + self.var_3; //or any other implementation
}
You will call this method like this
[self someMethod];
When you call method with some input data it means that this data will be used in method's implementation
- (void)someMethodWithInputData:(NSInteger)inputData {
self.var_1 = self.var_2 * inputData;
}
You will call it like this
[self someMethodWithInputData:10];
It's just the difference between saying "I wait" and "I eat an omelette". In some cases you can say what you mean with just a verb. In some cases a sentence needs an object in order to communicate its meaning.
The same thing applies in programming. Sonetimes you're going to need to specify more than just the action. But not always.
can someone please tell me whether this is the correct way of doing type casting in objective c.
I have an object "myObject" which could possibly be an instance of "DataViewController".
If so i should call the "updateView" method.
if (myObject respondsToSelector:#selector(updateView:)])
{
[(DataViewController *)myObject updateView:data];
}
You do not need a cast in this case: since you've started down the selector path, you might as well call performSelector:withObject: for consistency:
if (myObject respondsToSelector:#selector(updateView:)]) {
[myObject performSelector:#selector(updateView:) withObject:data];
}
This is a more general approach, because it lets you run updateView on objects of other types, not necessarily of DataViewController, as long as they have the appropriate method.
If you would like to use a type-based solution, you could use isKindOfClass: method, like this:
if (myObject isKindOfClass:[DataViewController class]]) {
DataViewController *ctrl = (DataViewController)myObject;
[ctrl updateView:data];
}
I have a lot of code that looks like this:
id myObjectRaw = getObject();
if(![myObjectRaw isKindOfClass:[MyClass class]]) return nil;
MyClass * myObject = myObjectRaw;
...
Here id getObject() can return several kinds of object. However the above code feels clunky to me. Is it safe to write this?
MyClass * myObject = getObject();
if(![myObject isKindOfClass:[MyClass class]]) return nil;
...
The compiler doesn't complain, but I'm not sure that I'm not treading on undefined behaviuor if getObject returns an object not related to MyClass.
(And no, I can't use a super class, or interface, since I dont actually have control over all the classes that get returned.)
You can do it. Nothing undefined. The only danger is that if the type is wrong and you forget to check the type, it may crash due to unrecognized selector exception.
In compiled code, id, MyClass * and NSString * have no difference, they just a pointer to a ObjC object.
Both versions will work. The first feels clunky, but there are problems with the second one as well: Putting something into a variable of a specific type implies knowledge of its type, and checking the class of something that seems to be known already looks redundant. If someone (it might be you) looks at that code next year, he may find the class check superfluous and remove it.
I've been in a similar situation, and I went with a helper method that gives a properly typed result or nil, i.e.
-(Rectangle)getRectangleObject {
id data = getObject();
if ([data isKindOfClass:[Rectangle class]]) return data;
return nil;
}
This simplifies code and communicates the intention clearly.
If you need several different type checks, you can go with several methods, or pass the class to this helper method.
As long as all types of returned objects conform to NSObject protocol (Classes that inherit from NSObject class do) it is safe to use isKindOfClass: method.
So make sure getObject() method only returns objective-c classes that inherit from NSObject
EDIT
While compiler is fine with it, as #Eiko mentions someone reading the code will probably think the isKindOfClass: check is unnecessary. It is better to use the former code to let the reader know that getObject() might also return other types of objects.
When you use id myObjectRaw you are NOT defining what kind of object myObjectRaw is, thus the compiler won't know if MyClass * myObject = getObject(); is a valid operation or not. THe compiler assumes you know what you are doing. If getObject() returns an object that is different than MyClass or it's not a subclass of it your app may crash. This is a runtime error.
If getObject() returns different objects, you should be expecting at least one object of the kind of objects that can be returned. If need to handle different objects, you can always use if-else-if instructions like:
id myObjectRaw = getObject();
if([myObjectRaw isKindOfClass:[MyClass1 class]])
{
MyClass1 objectClass1 = myObjectRaw;
}
else if([myObjectRaw isKindOfClass[MyClass2 class]])
{
MyClass2 objectClass2 = myObjectRaw;
}
However, if the object returned is a MyClass2 object, and this class is a subclass of MyClass1 the first condition will be true. Therefore, the object will be saved as a MyClass1 object. If that's the case you need to establish priorities and put them accordingly in the nested if-else-if statement.
I've got an object of type id and would like to know if it contains a value for a given keyPath:
[myObject valueForKeyPath:myKeyPath];
Now, I wrap it into a #try{ } #catch{} block to avoid exceptions when the given keypath isn't found. Is there a nicer way to do this? Check if the given keypath exists without handling exceptions?
Thanks a lot,
Stefan
You could try this:
if ([myObject respondsToSelector:NSSelectorFromString(myKeyPath)])
{
}
However, that may not correspond to the getter you have, especially if it is a boolean value. If this doesn't work for you, let me know and I'll write you up something using reflection.
For NSManagedObjects, an easy solution is to look at the object's entity description and see if there's an attribute with that key name. If there is, you can also take it to the next step and see what type of an attribute the value is.
Here's a simple method that given any NSManagedObject and any NSString as a key, will always return an NSString:
- (NSString *)valueOfItem:(NSManagedObject *)item asStringForKey:(NSString *)key {
NSEntityDescription *entity = [item entity];
NSDictionary *attributesByName = [entity attributesByName];
NSAttributeDescription *attribute = attributesByName[key];
if (!attribute) {
return #"---No Such Attribute Key---";
}
else if ([attribute attributeType] == NSUndefinedAttributeType) {
return #"---Undefined Attribute Type---";
}
else if ([attribute attributeType] == NSStringAttributeType) {
// return NSStrings as they are
return [item valueForKey:key];
}
else if ([attribute attributeType] < NSDateAttributeType) {
// this will be all of the NSNumber types
// return them as strings
return [[item valueForKey:key] stringValue];
}
// add more "else if" cases as desired for other types
else {
return #"---Unacceptable Attribute Type---";
}
}
If the key is invalid or the value can't be made into a string, the method returns an NSString error message (change those blocks to do whatever you want for those cases).
All of the NSNumber attribute types are returned as their stringValue representations. To handle other attribute types (e.g.: dates), simply add additional "else if" blocks. (see NSAttributeDescription Class Reference for more information).
If the object is a custom class of yours, you could override valueForUndefinedKey: on your object, to define what is returned when a keypath doesn't exist.
It should be possible to graft this behavior onto arbitrary classes reasonably simply. I present with confidence, but without warranty, the following code which you should be able to use to add a non-exception-throwing implementation of valueForUndefinedKey: to any class, with one, centralized line of code per class at app startup time. If you wanted to save even more code, you could make all the classes you wanted to have this behavior inherit from a common subclass of NSManagedObject and then apply this to that common class and all your subclasses would inherit the behavior. More details after, but here's the code:
Header (NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.h):
#interface NSObject (ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding)
+ (void)addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)handler;
#end
Implementation (NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.m):
#import "NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.h"
#import <objc/runtime.h>
#import <objc/message.h>
#implementation NSObject (ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding)
+ (void)addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)handler
{
Class clazz = self;
if (clazz == nil)
return;
if (clazz == [NSObject class] || clazz == [NSManagedObject class])
{
NSLog(#"Don't try to do this to %#; Really.", NSStringFromClass(clazz));
return;
}
SEL vfuk = #selector(valueForUndefinedKey:);
#synchronized([NSObject class])
{
Method nsoMethod = class_getInstanceMethod([NSObject class], vfuk);
Method nsmoMethod = class_getInstanceMethod([NSManagedObject class], vfuk);
Method origMethod = class_getInstanceMethod(clazz, vfuk);
if (origMethod != nsoMethod && origMethod != nsmoMethod)
{
NSLog(#"%# already has a custom %# implementation. Replacing that would likely break stuff.",
NSStringFromClass(clazz), NSStringFromSelector(vfuk));
return;
}
if(!class_addMethod(clazz, vfuk, handler, method_getTypeEncoding(nsoMethod)))
{
NSLog(#"Could not add valueForUndefinedKey: method to class: %#", NSStringFromClass(clazz));
}
}
}
#end
Then, in your AppDelegate class (or really anywhere, but it probably makes sense to put it somewhere central, so you know where to find it when you want to add or remove classes from the list) put this code which adds this functionality to classes of your choosing at startup time:
#import "MyAppDelegate.h"
#import "NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.h"
#import "MyOtherClass1.h"
#import "MyOtherClass2.h"
#import "MyOtherClass3.h"
static id ExceptionlessVFUKIMP(id self, SEL cmd, NSString* inKey)
{
NSLog(#"Not throwing an exception for undefined key: %# on instance of %#", inKey, [self class]);
return nil;
}
#implementation MyAppDelegate
+ (void)initialize
{
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
[MyOtherClass1 addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)ExceptionlessVFUKIMP];
[MyOtherClass2 addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)ExceptionlessVFUKIMP];
[MyOtherClass3 addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)ExceptionlessVFUKIMP];
});
}
// ... rest of app delegate class ...
#end
What I'm doing here is adding a custom implementation for valueForUndefinedKey: to the classes MyOtherClass1, 2 & 3. The example implementation I've provided just NSLogs and returns nil, but you can change the implementation to do whatever you want, by changing the code in ExceptionlessVFUKIMP. If you remove the NSLog, and just return nil, I suspect you'll get what you want, based on your question.
This code NEVER swizzles methods, it only adds one if it's not there. I've put in checks to prevent this from being used on classes that already have their own custom implementations of valueForUndefinedKey: because if someone put that method in their class, there's going to be an expectation that it will continue to get called. Also note that there may be AppKit code that EXPECTS the exceptions from the NSObject/NSManagedObject implementations to be thrown. (I don't know that for sure, but it's a possibility to consider.)
A few notes:
NSManagedObject provides a custom implementation for valueForUndefinedKey: Stepping through its assembly in the debugger, all it appears to do is throw roughly the same exception with a slightly different message. Based on that 5 minute debugger investigation, I feel like it ought to be safe to use this with NSManagedObject subclasses, but I'm not 100% sure -- there could be some behavior in there that I didn't catch. Beware.
Also, as it stands, if you use this approach, you don't have a good way to know if valueForKey: is returning nil because the keyPath is valid and the state happened to be nil, or if it's returning nil because the keyPath is invalid and the grafted-on handler returned nil. To do that, you'd need to do something different, and implementation specific. (Perhaps return [NSNull null] or some other sentinel value, or set some flag in thread-local storage that you could check, but at this point is it really all that much easier than #try/#catch?) Just something to be aware of.
This appears to work pretty well for me; Hope it's useful to you.
There's no easy way to solve this. Key Value Coding (KVC) isn't intended to be used that way.
One thing is for sure: using #try-#catch is really bad since you're very likely to leak memory etc. Exceptions in ObjC / iOS are not intended for normal program flow. They're also very expensive (both throwing and setting up the #try-#catch IIRC).
If you look at the Foundation/NSKeyValueCoding.h header, the comment / documentation for
- (id)valueForKey:(NSString *)key;
clearly states which methods need to be implemented for -valueForKey: to work. This may even use direct ivar access. You would have to check each one in the order described there. You need to take the key path, split it up based on . and check each part on each subsequent object. To access ivars, you need to use the ObjC runtime. Look at objc/runtime.h.
All of this is vary hacky, though. What you probably want is for your objects to implement some formal protocol and then check -conformsToProtocol: before calling.
Are your key paths random strings or are those strings under your control? What are you trying to achieve? Are you solving the wrong problem?
I don't believe this is possible in a safe way (i.e. without mucking with -valueForUndefinedKey: or something similar on other peoples' classes). I say that because on the Mac side of things, Cocoa Bindings—which can be set to substitute a default value for invalid key paths—simply catches the exceptions that result from bad key paths. If even Apple's engineers don't have a way to test if a key path is valid without trying it and catching the exception, I have to assume that such a way doesn't exist.
I want to use the return type of a selector to determine how it is used in my code is there a way to differentiate the return types in objective c I'll give you an example.
SEL selectors[]=
{#selector(method1),
... //each method returns a different type
#selector(methodn);}
for (SEL sel in selectors)
{
switch [[self performSelector:sel]/*idk something here maybe?*/]
{
case int:
//do some stuff
...
case NSString *:
//do some other stuff
}
}
Thanks in advance I couldn't find anything anywhere on this that talked about objective c
you can do this via method_copyReturnType in objc runtime.
however, objc types for return and parameters are all the same (last i checked), such that the runtime will not return the type with the description "NSArray" -- it will just be the identifier for an objc type. nevertheless, that level of detail is descriptive enough for your int or NSString case, and you can use an NSObject instance's class or isKindOfClass: (etc.) instance methods to determine its type once you have a handle on it.
You can get the NSMethodSignature of the method using -methodSignatureForSelector:. And then you can get the return type with the -methodReturnType from the NSMethodSignature object. Don't mess with the runtime if you don't have to.