I can't quite figure out what I have seen referred to as an Objective-C "class continuation". Is this / are these…
Ivar(s) declared in the #implementation (.m) file?
Another name for a class category? (Unlikely, ASFAIK categories cannot have Ivars, period)
Another name for a class extension?
Something else?
That said...
What is the scope, lifetime, and usage case for such a thing?
Is this an ARC-specific "feature"?
Are there specific runtime, or other requirements for their use?
Is this an appropriate place to create an #property, as well? And why would this be a better place for setting ivars or properties than, say, the #interface file / declaration?
Why do people complicate discussions by using such specific terminology - that seems NOT to exist in any official documentation (that I could find)?
In question In Objective-C what is the difference between defining something (say a property) in the header file as opposed to the .m file?
the discussion touches on this issue, but sort of just clouds the issue further - or at least fails to provide a canonical reference / definition of the term… hence this question.
A continuation class is what Apple calls a class extension. I have seen clang call them "continuation class" and gcc uses "class continuation".
Compile this in clang or gcc:
#interface Foo : NSObject
#property int a;
#end
#interface Foo()
#property float a;
#end
... and you will get errors with the funny names.
To answer the rest of your question:
What is the scope, lifetime, and usage case for such a thing?
Extensions are used to declare the private interface for a class. You can also use it to redeclare (refine) public property declarations.
Is this an ARC-specific "feature"?
NO.
Are there specific runtime, or other requirements for their use?
Class Extensions are a compile time concept and do not require a special runtime. Of course they do require a compiler that supports them (both clang and gcc do in current versions).
Is this an appropriate place to create an #property, as well? And why would this be a better place for setting ivars or properties than, say, the #interface file / declaration?
YES. Because you might want to have private properties.
Why do people complicate discussions by using such specific terminology - that seems NOT to exist in any official documentation (that I could find)?
Well, you know... I'd also prefer if the whole world spoke English, but for the time being I'm happy with the fact that I had to learn it in school.
Related
I'm writing a multiview app that utilizes a class called RootViewController to switch between views.
In my MyAppDelegate header, I create an instance of the RootViewController called rootViewController. I've seen examples of such where the #class directive is used as a "forward class declaration," but I'm not quite sure what this means or accomplishes.
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#class RootViewController;
#interface MyAppDelegate
.
.
.
It basically tells the compiler that the class RootViewController exists, without specifying what exactly it looks like (ie: its methods, properties, etc). You can use this to write code that includes RootViewController member variables without having to include the full class declaration.
This is particularly useful in resolving circular dependencies - for example, where say ClassA has a member of type ClassB*, and ClassB has a member of type ClassA*. You need to have ClassB declared before you can use it in ClassA, but you also need ClassA declared before you can use it in ClassB. Forward declarations allow you to overcome this by saying to ClassA that ClassB exists, without having to actually specify ClassB's complete specification.
Another reason you tend to find lots of forward declarations is some people adopt a convention of forward declaring classes unless they absolutely must include the full declaration. I don't entirely recall, but possibly that's something that Apple recommends in it's Objective-C guiding style guidlines.
Continuing my above example, if your declarations of ClassA and ClassB are in the files ClassA.h and ClassB.h respectively, you'd need to #import whichever one to use its declaration in the other class. Using forward declaration means you don't need the #import, which makes the code prettier (particularly once you start collecting quite a few classes, each of which would need an `#import where it's used), and increases compiling performance by minimising the amount of code the compiler needs to consider while compiling any given file.
As an aside, although the question is concerned solely with forward declarations in Objective-C, all the proceeding comments also apply equally to coding in C and C++ (and probably many other languages), which also support forward declaration and typically use it for the same purposes.
Forward declarations are mainly to avoid circular imports, where one file imports another file which imports the first file etc. Basically when you import a file, contents of the file are substituted at the point of import when you build your project, which is then fed to the compiler. If you have circular imports, you'd have an infinite loop which would never compile. Fortunately xcode will tell you about this before trying. The forward declaration says "Don't import this class but just know that it exists. " Without either an import or a forward declaration, you get an error that no such class exists.
#class or forward class declaration(incomplete type) - just tell to a compiler that this class exists. In this case the compiler does not know anything about type memory layout - class size, members, or methods. That is why you can only use for defining classes via references and pointers.
Advantages:
reduce build time
break cyclic references
With the current version of Objective-C, what are the official standards and best practices for declaring ivars, using #property and #synthesize? There are a lot of posts and resources on the topic but most of them are fairly antiquated from a year or two ago. I recently learned to only declare ivars in a statement block in the implementation of a class so that the encapsulation principles of OOP aren't broken but is declaring ivars even necessary in this day and age? What would be a possible use case where doing:
#interface MyClass()
#property (nonatomic) NSString* data;
#end
#implementation MyClass{
#private
NSString* _data;
}
#end
is necessary? To further that, is it ever necessary to use #synthesize? My understanding is that using #property will auto-synthesize both the accessor methods as well as the backing ivars. I've done some experimentation and I noticed that when I don't declare NSString* _data', I can still access_data' in my class implementation. Does that mean that declaring ivars come down to a matter of style, up to the discretion of the programmer? Could I condense my code and remove all ivar declarations in the statement blocks in my implementation and just use #property in my private interface? If that's not the case, what are the advantages and disadvantages of explicitly declaring ivars?
Finally, #dynamic. From what I can gather, it's used to say to the compiler, "Hey compiler, don't auto-generate the accessor method and don't worry if you don't find an implementation for it, I'll provide one at runtime". Is that all #dynamic is used for or is there more to it?
I just want to clarify all these things because it seems like there's a lot of different opinions and that there's not necessarily one right answer. Plus as Objective-C grows and progresses, those answers will change so it'll be nice to have a concise and up-to-date guide. Thanks everyone!
(Also if there's anything that I could word better or make clearer, let me know)
EDIT:
In summary, what I'm asking is this:
1) Is declaring ivars with modern Objective-C necessary?
2) Can I achieve the same effects of declaring ivars and corresponding properties by just using #property?
3) What is #dynamic used for?
4) Can I completely forgo the use of #synthesize or is there a good use case for it?
Upvote and down vote as you see fit.
There's a lot to answer here. I'll break it down:
Declaring ivars
As you've correctly noted, modern versions of the compiler will synthesize backing instance variables for declared #properties. The exception to this is on 32-bit Macs, where the modern Objective-C runtime, including non-fragile instance variables, is not available. Assuming your application is not targeting 32-bit OS X, you don't need to explicitly declare the backing ivar for an #property.
If you still want to use an ivar directly, without a corresponding #property (something I consider a bad idea most of the time), you of course must still explicitly declare the ivar.
#dynamic
#dynamic is as you've said meant to tell the compiler "don't synthesize accessors for this property, I'll do it myself at runtime". It's not used all that often. One place it is used is in NSManagedObject subclasses, where if you declare a modeled property in the header, you don't want to compiler to complain that there's no implementation of accessors for that property, nor do you want it to generate accessors itself. NSManagedObject generates accessors for modeled properties at runtime. The story is similar for custom CALayer subclasses.
#synthesize
#synthesize explicitly tells the compiler to synthesize accessor methods, and (on iOS and 64-bit Mac) a corresponding ivar for the specified property. There are three main cases where you still need to use it:
32-bit Mac apps.
If you've written your own custom setter and getter (or just getter for readonly properties). In this case, the compiler won't synthesize accessors because it sees yours. However, it also won't synthesize the backing ivar. So, you must use #synthesize someProperty = _someProperty;, to tell the compiler to synthesize an ivar. It still won't synthesize accessor methods of course. Alternatively, you can explicitly declare a backing ivar. I favor using #synthesize in this case.
If you want to use a different name for the property's backing ivar than the default (property name with an added underscore prefix). This is rare. The main case I can think of for using it is when transitioning existing, older code, that includes direct ivar access and where the ivars are not underscore-prefixed.
Best current practice seems to be to use properties for all ivars placing the property either in the .h file if they are to be exposed and in the .m file in a class extension if local to the class.
No #synthesize is needed unless the ivar needs to be different than the underscore prepended property name.
Yes, #dynamic is as you describe.
Further, it is no longer necessary to declare local instance methods or order such that the method is above the use.
First off, #synthesize is gone for these scenarios: do not have to do it any more.
Secondly, you don't need the private ivar anymore either.
So in essence, you can just do properties.
The way of controlling access is the same idiom that had become popular before MOC dropped: put the property in the public interface as readonly and then make a readwrite version in the private interface (which should be, as you show above, merely the name with open and close parens).
Note also, that many of the things that cluttered up the public interface in the past can now ONLY be in the private interface, so for instance IBOutlets, etc., since the controller is going to be the only thing diddling them.
I never see #dynamic used anywhere except in CoreDate-generated entities.
For someone who first worked with C++ where the dream was always that the header/interface merely show the user of the class what they needed and all other details would be hidden, I think MOC (Modern Objective C) is a dream come true.
BTW, highly recommend the intro session from WWDC Modern Objective C (from 2012) and the one this year was great too.
I'm writing a multiview app that utilizes a class called RootViewController to switch between views.
In my MyAppDelegate header, I create an instance of the RootViewController called rootViewController. I've seen examples of such where the #class directive is used as a "forward class declaration," but I'm not quite sure what this means or accomplishes.
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#class RootViewController;
#interface MyAppDelegate
.
.
.
It basically tells the compiler that the class RootViewController exists, without specifying what exactly it looks like (ie: its methods, properties, etc). You can use this to write code that includes RootViewController member variables without having to include the full class declaration.
This is particularly useful in resolving circular dependencies - for example, where say ClassA has a member of type ClassB*, and ClassB has a member of type ClassA*. You need to have ClassB declared before you can use it in ClassA, but you also need ClassA declared before you can use it in ClassB. Forward declarations allow you to overcome this by saying to ClassA that ClassB exists, without having to actually specify ClassB's complete specification.
Another reason you tend to find lots of forward declarations is some people adopt a convention of forward declaring classes unless they absolutely must include the full declaration. I don't entirely recall, but possibly that's something that Apple recommends in it's Objective-C guiding style guidlines.
Continuing my above example, if your declarations of ClassA and ClassB are in the files ClassA.h and ClassB.h respectively, you'd need to #import whichever one to use its declaration in the other class. Using forward declaration means you don't need the #import, which makes the code prettier (particularly once you start collecting quite a few classes, each of which would need an `#import where it's used), and increases compiling performance by minimising the amount of code the compiler needs to consider while compiling any given file.
As an aside, although the question is concerned solely with forward declarations in Objective-C, all the proceeding comments also apply equally to coding in C and C++ (and probably many other languages), which also support forward declaration and typically use it for the same purposes.
Forward declarations are mainly to avoid circular imports, where one file imports another file which imports the first file etc. Basically when you import a file, contents of the file are substituted at the point of import when you build your project, which is then fed to the compiler. If you have circular imports, you'd have an infinite loop which would never compile. Fortunately xcode will tell you about this before trying. The forward declaration says "Don't import this class but just know that it exists. " Without either an import or a forward declaration, you get an error that no such class exists.
#class or forward class declaration(incomplete type) - just tell to a compiler that this class exists. In this case the compiler does not know anything about type memory layout - class size, members, or methods. That is why you can only use for defining classes via references and pointers.
Advantages:
reduce build time
break cyclic references
I learned something new while trying to figure out why my readwrite property declared in a private Category wasn't generating a setter. It was because my Category was named:
// .m
#interface MyClass (private)
#property (readwrite, copy) NSArray* myProperty;
#end
Changing it to:
// .m
#interface MyClass ()
#property (readwrite, copy) NSArray* myProperty;
#end
and my setter is synthesized. I now know that Class Extension is not just another name for an anonymous Category. Leaving a Category unnamed causes it to morph into a different beast: one that now gives compile-time method implementation enforcement and allows you to add ivars. I now understand the general philosophies underlying each of these: Categories are generally used to add methods to any class at runtime, and Class Extensions are generally used to enforce private API implementation and add ivars. I accept this.
But there are trifles that confuse me. First, at a hight level: Why differentiate like this? These concepts seem like similar ideas that can't decide if they are the same, or different concepts. If they are the same, I would expect the exact same things to be possible using a Category with no name as is with a named Category (which they are not). If they are different, (which they are) I would expect a greater syntactical disparity between the two. It seems odd to say, "Oh, by the way, to implement a Class Extension, just write a Category, but leave out the name. It magically changes."
Second, on the topic of compile time enforcement: If you can't add properties in a named Category, why does doing so convince the compiler that you did just that? To clarify, I'll illustrate with my example. I can declare a readonly property in the header file:
// .h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#property (readonly, copy) NSString* myString;
#end
Now, I want to head over to the implementation file and give myself private readwrite access to the property. If I do it correctly:
// .m
#interface MyClass ()
#property (readwrite, copy) NSString* myString;
#end
I get a warning when I don't synthesize, and when I do, I can set the property and everything is peachy. But, frustratingly, if I happen to be slightly misguided about the difference between Category and Class Extension and I try:
// .m
#interface MyClass (private)
#property (readwrite, copy) NSString* myString;
#end
The compiler is completely pacified into thinking that the property is readwrite. I get no warning, and not even the nice compile error "Object cannot be set - either readonly property or no setter found" upon setting myString that I would had I not declared the readwrite property in the Category. I just get the "Does not respond to selector" exception at runtime. If adding ivars and properties is not supported by (named) Categories, is it too much to ask that the compiler play by the same rules? Am I missing some grand design philosophy?
Class extensions were added in Objective-C 2.0 to solve two specific problems:
Allow an object to have a "private" interface that is checked by the compiler.
Allow publicly-readable, privately-writable properties.
Private Interface
Before Objective-C 2.0, if a developer wanted to have a set of methods in Objective-C, they often declared a "Private" category in the class's implementation file:
#interface MyClass (Private)
- (id)awesomePrivateMethod;
#end
However, these private methods were often mixed into the class's #implementation block (not a separate #implementation block for the Private category). And why not? These aren't really extensions to the class; they just make up for the lack of public/private restrictions in Objective-C categories.
The problem is that Objective-C compilers assume that methods declared in a category will be implemented elsewhere, so they don't check to make sure the methods are implemented. Thus, a developer could declare awesomePrivateMethod but fail to implement it, and the compiler wouldn't warn them of the problem. That is the problem you noticed: in a category, you can declare a property (or a method) but fail to get a warning if you never actually implement it -- that's because the compiler expects it to be implemented "somewhere" (most likely, in another compilation unit independent of this one).
Enter class extensions. Methods declared in a class extension are assumed to be implemented in the main #implementation block; if they're not, the compiler will issue a warning.
Publicly-Readable, Privately-Writeable Properties
It is often beneficial to implement an immutable data structure -- that is, one in which outside code can't use a setter to modify the object's state. However, it can still be nice to have a writable property for internal use. Class extensions allow that: in the public interface, a developer can declare a property to be read-only, but then declare it to be writable in the class extension. To outside code, the property will be read-only, but a setter can be used internally.
So Why Can't I Declare a Writable Property in a Category?
Categories cannot add instance variables. A setter often requires some sort of backing storage. It was decided that allowing a category to declare a property that likely required a backing store was A Bad Thing™. Hence, a category cannot declare a writable property.
They Look Similar, But Are Different
The confusion lies in the idea that a class extension is just an "unnamed category". The syntax is similar and implies this idea; I imagine it was just chosen because it was familiar to Objective-C programmers and, in some ways, class extensions are like categories. They are alike in that both features allow you to add methods (and properties) to an existing class, but they serve different purposes and thus allow different behaviors.
You're confused by the syntactic similarity. A class extension is not just an unnamed category. A class extension is a way to make part of your interface private and part public — both are treated as part of the class's interface declaration. Being part of the class's interface, an extension must be defined as part of the class.
A category, on the other hand, is a way of adding methods to an existing class at runtime. This could be, for example, in a separate bundle that is only loaded on Thursdays.
For most of Objective-C's history, it was impossible to add instance variables to a class at runtime, when categories are loaded. This has been worked around very recently in the new runtime, but the language still shows the scars of its fragile base classes. One of these is that the language doesn't support categories adding instance variables. You'll have to write out the getters and setters yourself, old-school style.
Instance variables in categories are somewhat tricky, too. Since they aren't necessarily present when the instance is created and the initializer may not know anything about them, initializing them is a problem that doesn't exist with normal instance variables.
You can add a property in a category, you just can't synthesize it. If you use a category, you will not get a compile warning because it expects the setter to be implemented in the category.
Just a little clarification about the REASON for the different behavior of unnamed categories (now known as Class Extensions) and normal (named) categories.
The thing is very simple. You can have MANY categories extending the same class, loaded at runtime, without the compiler and linker ever knowing. (consider the many beautiful extensions people wrote to NSObject, that add it functionality post-hoc).
Now Objective-C has no concept of NAME SPACE. Therefore, having iVars defined in a named category could create a symbol clash in runtime. If two different categories would be able to define the same
#interface myObject (extensionA) {
NSString *myPrivateName;
}
#end
#interface myObject (extensionB) {
NSString *myPrivateName;
}
#end
then at the very least, there will be memory overrun at runtime.
In contradiction, Class extensions have NO NAME, and thus there can be only ONE. That's why you can define iVars there. They are assured to be unique.
As for the compiler errors and warnings related to categories and class extensions + ivars and property definitions, I have to agree they are not so helpful, and I spent too much time trying to understand why things compile or not, and how they work (if they work) after they compile.
I am a bit confused about encapsulation. In general (or in Obj-C), does it mean separation of interface/implementation OR does it imply access of ivars through methods ?
Please clarify. Thank you.
Actually, Both.
As nacho4d said, you encapsulate instance variables within your class and prevent direct access to them by using methods and properties to read and write their values. This ensures that the instance can always know when something has read or written a value whereas direct ivar access is no different from setting a value in a C struct.
However, the separation of #interface from #implementation also contributes greatly to encapsulation. And one of the goals of the enhancements to the language in the past few years has been to increase the degree of encapsulation offered by that separation.
Namely, the class's primary #interface can now contain only the parts of your class that you want other developers/code to interact with. The public interface, if you will. All of the implementation details can be moved out of the #interface in the latest compilers, including all instance variables.
The latter. From wikipedia:
A language mechanism for restricting
access to some of the object's
components.
Specifically in Objective-C an ivar will be #protected by default, so they only can be accessed within the same class or subclasses. can change it to #private or #public as you need.
The methods you mentioned are accessors (getters and setters) and in that case you probably want to use #properties since they can be defined in 1 line and you can set some attributes like retain, assign, copy, readonly, etc.
Read further on properties here (Apple doc)
Hiding of Class methods and variables from once class to other is called encapsulation.