This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is there a difference between an “instance variable” and a “property” in Objective-c?
Difference between self.ivar and ivar?
What is the difference between declaring variables in brackets immediately after the #interface line, and defining properties below?
For example...
#interface GCTurnBasedMatchHelper : NSObject {
BOOL gameCenterAvailable;
BOOL userAuthenticated;
}
#property (assign, readonly) BOOL gameCenterAvailable;
Defining the variables in the brackets simply declares them instance variables.
Declaring (and synthesizing) a property generates getters and setters for the instance variable, according to the criteria within the parenthesis. This is particularly important in Objective-C because it is often by way of getters and setters that memory is managed (e.g., when a value is assigned to an ivar, it is by way of the setter that the object assigned is retained and ultimately released). Beyond a memory management strategy, the practice also promotes encapsulation and reduces the amount of trivial code that would otherwise be required.
It is very common to declare an ivar in brackets and then an associated property (as in your example), but that isn't strictly necessary. Defining the property and synthesizing is all that's required, because synthesizing the property implicitly also creates an ivar.
The approach currently suggested by Apple (in templates) is:
Define property in header file, e.g.:
#property (assign, readonly) gameCenter;
Then synthesize & declare ivar in implementation:
#synthesize gameCenter = __gameCenter;
The last line synthesizes the gameCenter property and asserts that whatever value is assigned to the property will be stored in the __gameCenter ivar. Again, this isn't necessary, but by defining the ivar next to the synthesizer, you are reducing the locations where you have to type the name of the ivar while still explicitly naming it.
{
BOOL gameCenterAvailable;
BOOL userAuthenticated;
}
the above two are called member Variables
They can't be accessed outside the class.(Important point) (unless you provide custom getters and setters)
if you make a #property then the variable can be read inside the class as well as outside the class..so the setters and getters are generated for you..automatically
then declaring the same as a member variable isn't required..
It is just done to increase Readability .. you can read it easily than reading
#property (non..)
When you define a property a getter and setter is created for you. When you access them usingobject.member setters and getters are called automatically.
When you declare variable in interface setters and getters are not written for you. you can also specify some visibility modifiers to them like #private,#public etc.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Do declared properties require a corresponding instance variable?
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Why in many fragment code declare instance variable like and for what? what different about property and non property
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface class1:NSObject
{
NSMutableString *currentData;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableString * currentData;
What you saw is an "old code"... but sometimes you still need to support old versions (e.g. 10.5).
A property is simply a couple of getter and setter (well.. it depends on the attributes you choose: e.g. readonly will generate only a getter).
But a property operates (and so it needs) an instance variable. Usually what you see in the implementation file is something like
#implementation class1
#synthesize currentData = currentData;
#end
This means create getter and setter which uses currentData as variable.
For newer version you don't need to create the instance variable and you can just type the property and synthesize statement. In the most recent language version you don't even need the synthesize statement. Automatically an instance variable named _propertyName (underscore + name of the property) is created.
BTW: sometimes you still need to make your own getter and/or setter. Classic naming convention applies (e.g. - (void)setCurrentData: (NSMutableString*)newData; for setter and - (NSMutableString*)currentData; for getter), but same rules as before for properties: if you support only the most recent OSes you can just write the #property statement and right your getter and setter by using the "underscored" variable...
This question already has answers here:
What does #synthesize window=_window do?
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm just starting to use Objective-C and I need to clarify something
When I #synthesize a #property, it is common convention to do the following:
#interface Class : ParentClass
#property propertyName
#end
#implementation
#synthesize propertyName = _propertyName;
#end
I've seen plenty of questions and answers suggesting that "_propertyName" is widely accepted as the "correct" way to synthesize properties. However, does it serve ANY purpose? Or is it merely to increase readability and identify instance variables?
It makes it so that if you accidentally leave off "self." you get a nice compiler error instead of silently not having your methods called.
From http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/EncapsulatingData/EncapsulatingData.html
You Can Customize Synthesized Instance Variable Names
As mentioned earlier, the default behavior for a writeable property is
to use an instance variable called _propertyName.
If you wish to use a different name for the instance variable, you
need to direct the compiler to synthesize the variable using the
following syntax in your implementation:
#implementation YourClass #synthesize propertyName =
instanceVariableName; ... #end
Also:
Note: The compiler will automatically synthesize an instance variable
in all situations where it’s also synthesizing at least one accessor
method. If you implement both a getter and a setter for a readwrite
property, or a getter for a readonly property, the compiler will
assume that you are taking control over the property implementation
and won’t synthesize an instance variable automatically. If you still
need an instance variable, you’ll need to request that one be
synthesized: #synthesize property = _property;
By doing this the generated accessor actually got to know which variable(iVar) to use.
Yea, It increases the readability & also separates the private & public variables to understand & use. Private variable of Class generally written in "propertyName" format.You can say it is a coding convention where Private Variable Names use '' as prefix and Public Variables or Property Names are lowerCamelCase.
Sometimes we may explicitly specify the name of an instance variable in the synthesize statement, e.g.,
In SomeViewController.h,
//....
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSObject *variable;
//....
In SomeViewController.m,
//....
#synthesize variable = _variable;
//....
But why bother making this extra effort if the instance variable will be implicitly named as _variable even if we simply put it as:
#synthesize variable;
in the SomeViewController.m.
Can anyone share some idea on why it is necessary? Thank you :D
Just to avoid confusion (see comments): Using the = _variable part of the #synthesize is not required, nor is the #synthesize itself required any more.
This effort is only requied, when you want to link the property to a specific instance variable. With earlier Objective-C versions this part of the statement was required to set the name to something different from the property name, so when you want to call the iVar _variable and the property variable. The default would be variable (unlike your question). Without that = something ivar and property have the same name.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with using the same name for both. But having different names, a leading _ would do, makes it more clear to the programmer whether he/she accesses the ivar directly or though the accessor methods. Sometimes this is of vast importance, especially when not using ARC. Therefore it helps avoiding errors.
With current Objective-C, however, you could omit the #synthesize statement at all and go with the defaults in that case. The default automatically synthesized instance variable name would have a leading _ so _variable in your example.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Difference between self.ivar and ivar?
In Objective-C, what's the difference between [self setVariable: newStuff] and variable = newStuff?
When you have a class with a variable
#property (nonatomic) NSInteger num;
and you want to change the variable, typically you can do
[self setNum: newNum]
but you can also do
num = newNum
I know if you declare the variable readOnly, you can't use the first method to change it, but what's the concept behind it? Is it just because the second method with the setter can be called outside of its own class? Like if the class's instance was called 'sample'.
[sample setNum: newNum]
but then if you are changing the variable inside the class, either way is fine?
In Objective-C, what's the difference between [self setVariable:
newStuff] and variable = newStuff?
To be absolutely pedantic, one of them assigns the variable property the value in newStuff, whereas the other one assigns the value of newStuff to the iVar variable, but what I think you had in mind was a comparison between [self setVariable:
newStuff] and self.variable = newStuff. In that case, nothing is different, the compiler will expand case 2 out to case 1.
I know if you declare the variable readOnly, you can't use the first
method to change it, but what's the concept behind it? Is it just
because the second method with the setter can be called outside of its
own class? Like if the class's instance was called 'sample'.
readonly variables are important in cases where certain properties are private to the implementation of a class, but should be visible to other classes.
For example, if I were writing a Stack, I might want to expose the count of the number of items on the stack, but it would be a very bad idea for other classes to be able to write to the count variable. If I weren't smart and were using something like a count variable, I would want to be able to adjust the count of the semaphore internally (meaning you need it to be internally readwrite), so I declare a visibly readonly property so other classes can get it, but declare it internally readwrite so I can modify it:
//.h
#interface CFExampleStack : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, assign, readonly) int count; //readonly
#end
//.m
#interface CFExampleStack ()
#property (nonatomic, assign) int count; //readwrite
#end
Is it just because the second method with the setter can be called outside of its own class?
Well, that depends on how your instance variable is declared. By default, instance variables are #protected, i. e. they can be accessed from within the class and its subclasses only. However, if you explicitly declare an ivar as #public, then you can access it outside the class, using the C struct pointer member operator ->:
obj->publicIvar = 42;
However, this is not recommended, since it violates encapsulation.
Furthermore, if you use a custom setter method, then you have the opportunity to do custom actions when a property of an instance is updated. For example, if one changes the backgroundColor property of a UIView, it needs to redraw itself in addition to assigning the new UIColor object to its appropriate ivar, and for that, a custom setter implementation with side effects is needed.
Additionally, there are retained ("strong") and copied properties in case of instance variables that hold object. While writing a setter for a primitive type such as an integer is as simple as
- (void)setFoo:(int)newFoo
{
_foo = newFoo;
}
then, in contrast, a retained or copied property needs proper memory nanagement calls:
- (void)setBar:(Bar *)newBar
{
if (_bar != newBar) {
[_bar release];
_bar = [newBar retain]; // or copy
}
}
Without such an implementation, no reference counting would take place, so the assigned object could either be prematurely deallocated or leaked.
One more important difference...
Whenever you use self.prop KVC comes into play and you can observe the changes in the object, while _prop bypasses it.
I take for example the UIButton interface.
Here the first rows of #private definition :
#private
CFMutableDictionaryRef _contentLookup;
UIEdgeInsets _contentEdgeInsets;
UIEdgeInsets _titleEdgeInsets;
And here 2 of these ivar, that are defined as properties:
#property(nonatomic) UIEdgeInsets contentEdgeInsets;
#property(nonatomic) UIEdgeInsetstitleEdgeInsets;
However these 2 properties are not defined on the ivars i found in private method (which have suffix _).
I'm not sure to understand how could be implemented setter and getter for these 2 properties to refer to the private ivars.
And a second question... i used to create properties for ivar, thus, if i have an ivar FOO i can create a #property for FOO. Is it a normal behavior create property for a non existing ivar ? (in this case contentEdgeInsets is not an attribute for this class... on the contrary _contentEdgeInset is defined in #interface and this's a valid ivar). Ok what i missed with this argument ?
When you #synthesize these properties you do so like
#synthesize contentEdgeInsets = _contentEdgeInsets;
^property name ^iVar name
Check out the Property Implementation Directives section in the documentation.
By default, a property will use the ivar whose name is the same as that of the property, but it's also possible to specify an ivar of a different name. Do this in your #synthesize statement in the class implementation.
In the modern runtime, used pretty much everywhere at this point, you don't actually have to declare the ivar at all -- if you synthesize accessors for a property and there's no matching ivar, the runtime will provide one.
Finally, properties with #dynamic rather than #synthesized accessors don't necessarily need an ivar at all -- you're providing the accessors in this case, so you're free to derive the value of the property however you like.