I have a situation in Objective-C where a Java-style enum would be very helpful. I have a set of layer types, and each layer has its own persistence value associated with it (stored in seconds). I want to keep these layer types in an enum, since they're too similar to make into separate classes, like so:
typedef enum {
ExplosionLayerType,
FireworkLayerType,
FireLayerType,
FireJetLayerType
} FXLayerType;
In Java, I could easily associate these two values with something like this:
public enum FXLayerType {
Explosion(3),
Firework(6),
Fire(7),
FireJet(-1);
private int persistence;
FXLayerType(int persistence) {
this.persistence = persistence;
}
}
Is there a simple way to create a sort of lightweight class like this in Objective-C, or will need to resort to more primitive methods?
EDIT:
Various people have suggested doing something like this:
typedef enum {
ExplosionLayerType = 3,
FireworkLayerType = 6
} FXLayerType;
This will not work for me, since I may have something like this (Java-style enum):
Explosion(3),
Firework(6),
Dust(3);
In Java, Dust and Explosion will be treated as unique values, but direct assignment with C enums will treat them as being exactly the same.
If you just want a primitive container for type and value, consider this approach:
typedef struct FXLayerValue {
FXLayerType type;
int value;
} FXLayerValue;
Then again, a class hierarchy may be worth consideration if things become complex or are better handled dynamically. Caveat: if you have a ton of objects to save and/or create, an objc type will be overkill and degrade performance.
Unfortunately, my Java-Fu isn't good enough to know all the lang differences for enums.
To emulate Java enum's we need something which is comparable (can be operands of == etc.), which can have fields, and is lightweight. This suggests structs, and optionally pointers to structs. Here is an example of the latter:
FXLayerType.h:
typedef const struct { int persistence; } FXLayerType;
extern FXLayerType * const LayerTypeExplosion;
extern FXLayerType * const LayerTypeFirework;
extern FXLayerType * const LayerTypeDust;
FXLayerType.m:
#import "FXLayerType.h"
const FXLayerType _LayerTypeExplosion = { 3 };
const FXLayerType _LayerTypeFirework = { 6 };
const FXLayerType _LayerTypeDust = { 3 };
FXLayerType * const LayerTypeExplosion = &_LayerTypeExplosion;
FXLayerType * const LayerTypeFirework = &_LayerTypeFirework;
FXLayerType * const LayerTypeDust = &_LayerTypeDust;
So FXLayerType itself is a constant struct, while as with Obj-C objects we always use pointers to these structs. The implementation creates 3 constant structs and 3 constant pointers to them.
We can now write code such as:
FXLayerType *a, *b;
a = LayerTypeDust;
b = LayerTypeExplosion;
NSLog(#"%d, %d\n", a == b, a->persistence == b->persistence);
Which will output "0, 1" - a and b are different enums (0) but have the same persistence (1). Note here a and b are not constant pointers, only the enum "literals" are defined as constants.
As written this has the disadvantage that you cannot switch on an enum value. However if that is needed just add a second field, say tag, and init it with a unique value using a real enum, say FXLayerStyleTag. You can also remove the indirection if you are happy to always compare tags (e.g. a.tag ==b.tag`). This gives you:
FXLayerType.h:
typedef enum { ExplosionTag, FireworkTag, DustTag } FXLayerTypeTag;
typedef struct { FXLayerTypeTag tag; int persistence; } FXLayerType;
extern const FXLayerType LayerTypeExplosion;
extern const FXLayerType LayerTypeFirework;
extern const FXLayerType LayerTypeDust;
FXLayerType.m:
#import "FXLayerType.h"
const FXLayerType LayerTypeExplosion = { ExplosionTag, 3 };
const FXLayerType LayerTypeFirework = { FireworkTag, 6 };
const FXLayerType LayerTypeDust = { DustTag, 3 };
Use:
FXLayerType a, b;
a = LayerTypeDust;
b = LayerTypeExplosion;
NSLog(#"%d, %d\n", a.tag == b.tag, a.persistence == b.persistence);
A difference between the two designs is the first passes around pointers while the second structures, which may be larger. You can combine them, to get switchable pointer-based enums - that is left as an exercise!
Both these designs also have the (dis)advantage that the number of enum "literals" can be extended at any time.
Actually you may assign values to the enum keys in C, as they are nothing but ints:
typedef enum {
LayerTypeExplosion = 3,
LayerTypeFirework = 6,
LayerTypeFire = 7,
LayerTypeFireJet = -1
} FXLayerType;
You may use them then simply as a restricted set of values, to be assigned to a variable of type FXLayerType.
FXLayerType myLayerType = LayerTypeFirework;
NSLog(#"Value of myLayerType = %i", myLayerType);
// => "Value of myLayerType = 6"
This is not 100% equivalent, but this might be an approach you could take in Objective-C. Basically, create several class-level convenience methods to construction the various configuration of FXLayerType.
#interface FXLayerType
{
#private
int persistence;
}
+ (FXLayerType*)fireworkLayerType;
+ (FXLayerType*)explosionLayerType;
+ (FXLayerType*)jetLayerType;
#end
#implementation FXLayerType
+ (FXLayerType*)explosionLayerTypeWithPersistence:(int)persistence
{
FXLayerType* layerType = [[FXLayerType new] autorelease];
layerType->persistence = persistence;
return layerType;
}
+ (FXLayerType*)explosionLayerType
{
return [self explosionLayerTypeWithPersistence:3];
}
+ (FXLayerType*)fireworkLayerType
{
return [self explosionLayerTypeWithPersistence:6];
}
+ (FXLayerType*)jetLayerType
{
return [self explosionLayerTypeWithPersistence:-1];
}
#end
Usage:
FXLayerType* aJetLayerType = [FXLayerType jetLayerType];
I have recently used the j2objc format for enums. It works rather nicely. Additionally you can auto generate your enums if you are trying to map directly from a java object.
https://code.google.com/p/j2objc/wiki/Enums
However, I did remove the j2objc specific classes from my "Enums". I did not want the additional dependencies.
The struct based answers look good on their face but fail when you try to add Objective-C objects into the struct. Given that limitation, truly emulating the Java-style enum may be more work than it is worth.
Related
I wish to have two different enums, but they might have the same literal; for example:
typedef enum {ONE,TWO,THREE,FOUR,FIVE,SIX} NumbersEnum;
typedef enum {ONE,TWO,THREE,FIVE,EIGHT} FibonacciEnum;
This will raise a compile error because ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE are repeated in both enums.
Is there a way to make this work as-is (not changing the literals' names or adding a prefix or suffix)?
Is there any way my code using the literals can look like this: int num = NumbersEnum.SIX; and not like this int num = SIX;?
No. That's part of the C and Objective-C language from the beginning of time. You're not going to change it, and nobody is going to change it for you.
You cannot do this with enums; their members are global and the names must be unique. There is, however, a neat technique you can use to make pseudo-namespaces for constants with structs.
Declare your "namespace" in the appropriate header:
extern const struct _FibonacciNumbers
{
int one;
int two;
int three;
int five;
} FibonacciNumbers;
Then initialize the values in an implementation file:
const struct _FibonacciNumbers FibonacciNumbers = {
.one = 1,
.two = 2,
.three = 3,
.five = 5
};
You now access a constant as, e.g., FibonacciNumbers.one, and other struct types can use the same names since the names are private to each of them.
So that's "No" for your first option, but "Yes" to the second.
There is a global enum defined in Objective-C:
typedef enum {
UMSocialSnsTypeNone = 0,
UMSocialSnsTypeQzone = 10,
UMSocialSnsTypeSina = 11, //sina weibo
} UMSocialSnsType;
This code sets the sharetype of a platform:
snsPlatform.shareToType = UMSocialSnsTypeDouban;
In Swift, I want to get the sharetype of the platform:
var snstype = snsPlatform!.shareToType
println(snstype)
Result: UMSocialSnsType (has 1 child)
snstype.toRaw()
Error: UMSocialSnsType does not have a member named "toRaw"
From what I can tell, UMSocialSNSType was declared in Objective-C without using the NS_ENUM macro, so it wasn't imported as a Swift enum. That means that instead of being able to use .toRaw() or UMSocialSNSType.Douban you have to use the different enumeration values as constant structs. Unfortunately the type also doesn't have the appropriate operators (== or ~=) set up, so you have to compare the value property.
var snstype = snsPlatform!.shareToType
switch snstype.value {
case UMSocialSnsTypeDouban.value:
println("douban")
case UMSocialSnsTypeEmail.value:
println("email")
default:
println("other")
}
if snstype.value == UMSocialSnsTypeDouban.value {
println("douban")
}
The good news is that it looks like all the constants autocomplete in Xcode, so you should be able to do find the comparisons you need to do that way.
It looks like the Swift-version of the bridged typedef...enum must be something like:
struct UMSocialSnsType {
var value:Int
init(_ val:Int) {
value = val
}
}
let UMSocialSnsTypeNone = UMSocialSnsType(0)
let UMSocialSnsTypeQzone = UMSocialSnsType(10)
let UMSocialSnsTypeSina = UMSocialSnsType(11)
// etc
Whereas if it had been declared in Objective-C with the NS_ENUM macro, it would look like:
enum UMSocialSnsType: Int {
case UMSocialSnsTypeNone = 0
case UMSocialSnsTypeQzone = 10, UMSocialSnsTypeSina // etc.
}
I've got a question regarding bitwise enums that I just can't seem to resolve. I've got a number of flags that are represented by a bitwise enum as in the following example:
enum
{
EnumNone=0,
EnumOne = 1<<0,
EnumTwo = 1<<1,
EnumThree = 1<<2,
EnumFour = 1<<3
};
typedef NSUInteger MyEnum;
All is fine with the above example. Based on my research and various helpful posts in stackoverflow (this for example), I've concluded that, using the above example, I'm essentially given 32 options (or shifts if you will), each option representing 1 bit in a 32-bit series of options, which basically tells me that I can go all the way to EnumThirtyTwo = 1 << 31.
My question is this:
Suppose I've more than 32, say 75 flags for example, to represent using a bitwise enum. How would that best be represented?
enum
{
EnumNone=0,
EnumOne = 1<<0,
EnumTwo = 1<<1,
EnumThree = 1<<2,
EnumFour = 1<<3,
...
...
EnumSeventyFive = 1<<75
};
typedef NSUInteger MyEnum;
Would it be a simple matter of changing the declaration of my enum type, say, to: typedef long int MyEnum; or typedef long MyEnum?
You can use a few simple macros/functions and a struct containing a char array of sufficient size - gives you call-by-value semantics, i.e. just like real enums. E.g. something along the lines of (typed directly into answer):
typedef struct
{
char bits[10]; // enough for 80 bits...
} SeventyFiveFlags;
typedef enum
{
EnumOne = 0,
...
EnumSeventyFive = 74
} SeventyFiveFlagNames;
NS_INLINE BOOL testFlag(SeventyFiveFlags flags, SeventyFiveFlagNames bit)
{
return (flags.bits[bit >> 3] & (1 << (bit & 0x7))) != 0;
}
However you can also use the bitstring(3) functions/macros if you are OK with call-by-reference semantics. These create (heap or stack) bit strings of any length. Use your enum to provide symbolic names for the bit numbers rather than masks, e.g.:
#include <bitstring.h>
typedef enum
{
EnumOne = 0,
...
EnumSeventyFive = 74,
SeventyFiveFlagsSize = 75
} SeventyFiveFlagNames;
typedef bitstr_t *SeventyFiveFlags;
// local (stack) declaration & use
SeventyFiveFlags seventyFive;
bit_decl(seventyFive, SeventyFiveFlagsSize); // declare
bit_nclear(seventyFive, EnumOne, EnumSeventyFive); // set all false
if( bit_test(seventyFive, EnumFortyTwo) ) // test
You can always wrap this up as a class if heap allocation only is OK.
Maybe I am talking about something irrelevant.
I think having too much flag in an enum is not a good practise. Having this large amount of flag, there must be ways to group them up like:
enum
{
EnumNone=0,
EnumOne = 1<<0,
EnumTwo = 1<<1,
EnumThree = 1<<2,
EnumFour = 1<<3
};
typedef NSUInteger widthRelated;
enum
{
EnumNone=0,
EnumOne = 1<<0,
EnumTwo = 1<<1,
EnumThree = 1<<2,
EnumFour = 1<<3
};
typedef NSUInteger heightRelated;
Given I have a type specifier as returned by method_copyReturnType(). In the GNU runtime delivered with the GCC there are various methods to work with such a type specifier like objc_sizeof_type(), objc_alignof_type() and others.
When using the Apple runtime there are no such methods.
How can I interpret a type specifier string (e.g. get the size of a type) using the Apple runtime without implementing an if/else or case switch for myself?
[update]
I am not able to use the Apple Foundation.
I believe that you're looking for NSGetSizeAndAlignment:
Obtains the actual size and the aligned size of an encoded type.
const char * NSGetSizeAndAlignment (
const char *typePtr,
NSUInteger *sizep,
NSUInteger *alignp
);
Discussion
Obtains the actual size and the aligned size of the first data type represented by typePtr and returns a pointer to the position of the next data type in typePtr.
This is a Foundation function, not part of the base runtime, which is probably why you didn't find it.
UPDATE: Although you didn't initially mention that you're using Cocotron, it is also available there. You can find it in Cocotron's Foundation, in NSObjCRuntime.m.
Obviously, this is much better than rolling your own, since you can trust it to always correctly handle strings generated by its own runtime in the unlikely event that the encoding characters should change.
For some reason, however, it's unable to handle the digit elements of a method signature string (which presumably have something to do with offsets in memory). This improved version, by Mike Ash will do so:
static const char *SizeAndAlignment(const char *str, NSUInteger *sizep, NSUInteger *alignp, int *len)
{
const char *out = NSGetSizeAndAlignment(str, sizep, alignp);
if(len)
*len = out - str;
while(isdigit(*out))
out++;
return out;
}
afaik, you'll need to bake that info into your binary. just create a function which returns the sizeof and alignof in a struct, supports the types you must support, then call that function (or class method) for the info.
The program below shows you that many of the primitives are just one character. So the bulk of the function's implementation could be a switch.
static void test(SEL sel) {
Method method = class_getInstanceMethod([NSString class], sel);
const char* const type = method_copyReturnType(method);
printf("%s : %s\n", NSStringFromSelector(sel).UTF8String, type);
free((void*)type);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
#autoreleasepool {
test(#selector(init));
test(#selector(superclass));
test(#selector(isEqual:));
test(#selector(length));
return 0;
}
}
and you could then use this as a starting point:
typedef struct t_pair_alignof_sizeof {
size_t align;
size_t size;
} t_pair_alignof_sizeof;
static t_pair_alignof_sizeof MakeAlignOfSizeOf(size_t align, size_t size) {
t_pair_alignof_sizeof ret = {align, size};
return ret;
}
static t_pair_alignof_sizeof test2(SEL sel) {
Method method = class_getInstanceMethod([NSString class], sel);
const char* const type = method_copyReturnType(method);
const size_t length = strlen(type);
if (1U == length) {
switch (type[0]) {
case '#' :
return MakeAlignOfSizeOf(__alignof__(id), sizeof(id));
case '#' :
return MakeAlignOfSizeOf(__alignof__(Class), sizeof(Class));
case 'c' :
return MakeAlignOfSizeOf(__alignof__(signed char), sizeof(signed char));
...
I'm experimenting with Obj-C blocks and trying to have a struct with two blocks in it where one block is to change what the other block does.
this is a really roundabout way to do something simple... and there may be better ways to do it, but the point of the exercise is for me to understand blocks. here's the code , it doesn't work, so what am I missing/not understanding and/or doing wrong?
//enumerate my math operation options so i can have something more understandable
//than 0, 1, 2, etc... also makes it easier to add operations, as opTypeTotal
//will be 1 plus the index of the operation before it.
typedef enum
{
opTypeAdd = 0,
opTypeSubtract = 1,
opTypeTotal
} opType;
//not sure if (struct someMathStruct)* is correct, probably is wrong
//the intent is to pass a pointer to someMathStruct, but the compiler
//won't know about its existance until a few lines later...
typedef (void)(^changeBlock)(opType,(struct someMathStruct)*);
typedef (void)(^mathBlock)(int,int,int*);
//hold two blocks, to be defined later at runtime
typedef struct someMathStruct{
mathBlock doMath;
changeBlock changeOperation;
} SomeMath;
//i want to declare an array of blocks of type mathBlock
//the intent is to have the array index to correspond with the opTypes enumerated above
//almost certain i'm doing this wrong
mathBlock *m[opTypeTotal] = malloc(sizeof(mathBlock *)*opTypeTotal);
//just two simple math operations as blocks
m[opTypeAdd] = ^(void)(int a,int b,int *result){*result = a+b;};
m[opTypeSubtract] = ^(void)(int a,int b,int *result){*result = a-b;};
//this block is what's supposed to change the other block in the struct
//it takes an opType, and a pointer to the SomeMath struct
//is this the right way to access the member variables of the struct?
changeBlock changeMe = ^(void)(opType a, SomeMath *b) {
//should make adding operations as easy as just adding cases
switch (a)
{
case opTypeAdd: *b.doMath=m[a]; break;
case opTypeSubtract:
default: *b.doMath=m[a]; //catch-all goes to subtracting
}
}
...
SomeMath mathFun;
int theTotal = 0; //a test int to work with
//do i need to copy the changeMe block?
//or can i just do what i'm doing here as the block itself isn't unique
mathFun.changeOperation = changeMe;
mathFun->changeOperation(opTypeAdd, &mathFun);
mathFun->doMath(theTotal,11,&theTotal); //result should be 11
mathFun->changeOperation(opTypeSubtract, &mathFun);
mathFun->doMath(theTotal,3,&theTotal); //result should be 8
NSLog(#"the result: %d",theTotal); //should output "the result: 8"
The code seems to work as you expect (the result is 8) once you fix the compilation errors:
Compile with: gcc -o test test.m -framework Foundation
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
//enumerate my math operation options so i can have something more understandable
//than 0, 1, 2, etc... also makes it easier to add operations, as opTypeTotal
//will be 1 plus the index of the operation before it.
typedef enum
{
opTypeAdd = 0,
opTypeSubtract = 1,
opTypeTotal
} opType;
struct someMathStruct; // Forward declare this as a type so we can use it in the
// changeBlock typedef
typedef void (^changeBlock) (opType,struct someMathStruct*);
typedef void (^mathBlock) (int,int,int*);
//hold two blocks, to be defined later at runtime
typedef struct someMathStruct{
mathBlock doMath;
changeBlock changeOperation;
} SomeMath;
int main()
{
//i want to declare an array of blocks of type mathBlock
//the intent is to have the array index to correspond with the opTypes
// enumerated above
mathBlock *m = calloc(opTypeTotal, sizeof(mathBlock *));
//just two simple math operations as blocks
m[opTypeAdd] = ^(int a,int b,int *result){*result = a+b;};
m[opTypeSubtract] = ^(int a,int b,int *result){*result = a-b;};
changeBlock changeMe = ^(opType a, SomeMath *b) {
//should make adding operations as easy as just adding cases
switch (a)
{
case opTypeAdd: b->doMath = m[a]; break;
case opTypeSubtract:
default: b->doMath = m[a]; //catch-all goes to subtracting
}
};
SomeMath mathFun;
int theTotal = 0; //a test int to work with
mathFun.changeOperation = changeMe;
mathFun.changeOperation(opTypeAdd, &mathFun);
mathFun.doMath(theTotal,11,&theTotal); //result should be 11
mathFun.changeOperation(opTypeSubtract, &mathFun);
mathFun.doMath(theTotal,3,&theTotal); //result should be 8
NSLog(#"the result: %d",theTotal); //should output "the result: 8"
}