From my understanding both of the following getter methods reference the actual object.
So what is the difference between the two?
When and why would you want to use the second getter method?
- (MyObject *)myObject
{
return _myObject;
}
- (void)getMyObject:(MyObject **)myObject
{
if (!myObject)
{
*myObject = _myObject;
}
}
You would not use the second one.
Unless you like confusing people/yourself at a later date by not following the standard conventions.
It would make more sense if there was another piece of data that could also be returned for example look at NSManagedObjectContext
- (BOOL)save:(NSError **)error
The important result of the method is YES/NO did it save, but then we can also get an NSError object to inspect if there was an error.
In Objective C, an "object" is a C pointer, so an object value is actually already the same as a structure reference (an opaque structure with hidden fields if you want the code to be portable between Objective C runtimes).
So there is no "versus".
YouR first example is both.
There are special situations when an algorithm needs a reference to a reference, or a pointer to a pointer, but not very commonly. That would be your second example.
Related
I am trying to understand the methods generated when properties are used.
Say I have the following declaration
#property int myint;
Now I know I could access this variables as such (say d was my instance of the class)
d.myint = 12; //this is equivalent to [d setMyint:12];
NSLog(#"The value is %d",d.myint); // what method is generated ?
What is the getter method called ? I was under the impression it was called getMyint however that isnt available ? Any suggestions if I might be missing something here?
As stated in the other answers, the proerty declaration gives you a getter and a setter for that instance variable for free! The notation is that you can either get [self myInt]; or self.myInt;. Both calls are 100% equivalent, i.e. they will both call the method - (int)myInt. This method is not visible (or rather, it's not explicitly implemented, see below) by default, however, you can implement it to provide some custom logic (e.g. check for specific values, error handling or lazy instantiation). If you want to override it, put this in your .m file.
- (int)myInt {
NSLog(#"getter of my int called, current value %d", _myInt);
return _myInt;
}
I only want to add to the the previous answers that in Objective-C, you have the possibility to rename your getters and setters when declaring the property, like so:
#property (getter=getMyInt) int myInt;
you can call those in the exact same way that you would use your normale getter:
int myInt = [self getMyInt];
// or
int myInt = self.getMyInt; // (will work but is not recommended since the compiler will interpret this as calling the getter of a property named `getMyInt` and only when this one is not found will actually fall back to the custom getter (thx to #NikolaiRuhe again for pointing this out))
Update:
Agreeing with most of what #NikolaiRuhe stated in his comment, here is a clarification of my answer referring to the mentioned issues:
This is indeed a typo, of course the way to use the property getter is by either calling [self myInt] or using dot notation self.myInt, and not [self getMyInt]. These calls are however 100% equivalent since they both invoke the actual getter.
About the visibility, indeed I should have been more explicit here. In OOP terms, visibility is a concept that describes the accessibility of instance variables from the outside of a particular class. I meant it exactly in the way that #NikolaiRuhe suggested, i.e. that this method is not explicitly implemented (so, it's not visible in the code by default). Sorry about this misunderstanding!
I am actually not sure about this point. For me this didn't make much of a difference in the past, I don't insist on this point. So I'd well acknowledge that the act of explicitly implementing a getter is not actually an override but rather a replacement of the synthesized method.
After explicitly renaming the getter to getMyInt like I suggested above, I don't see anything "wrong" with calling self.getMyInt. Why would this be the wrong way to access the property?
The getter method would be:
[d myInt];
Per the Apple docs :
You access or set an object’s properties via accessor methods:
NSString *firstName = [somePerson firstName];
[somePerson setFirstName:#"Johnny"]; By default, these accessor methods are synthesized automatically for you by the compiler, so you
don’t need to do anything other than declare the property using
#property in the class interface.
The synthesized methods follow specific naming conventions:
The method used to access the value (the getter method) has the same
name as the property. The getter method for a property called
firstName will also be called firstName.
The method used to set the value (the setter method) starts with the
word “set” and then uses the capitalized property name. The setter
method for a property called firstName will be called setFirstName:.
The syntax of getter method would be-
-(int)myint{
return myInt;
}
It will return myInt property of the receiver if this message i.e. d in your case.
If you are creating a property in objective-c, it creates 3 things for you.
an instance variable which you can access by using an underscore before the property name. Ex: _myint
a getter method which you can call directly by using the property name. Ex: [self myint]; / self.myint, this will actually call - (int)myint {} method.
a setter method which you can call by using a 'set' keyword before it. Ex: [self setMyint:12]; / self.myint = 12, this will actually call - (void)setMyint:(int)myint {} method.
Source
So when you write d.myint = 12; this is equivalent to writing [d setMyint:12];
And when you write NSLog(#"The value is %d",d.myint); this is equivalent to writing NSLog(#"The value is %d",[d myint]);
Custom Getters and Setters
Credits
You can also give custom names to your property Getters and Setters. This is how it is done
#property (getter=getMyInt, setter=setMyIntWithInt) int myint;
Ex:
[d setMyIntWithInt:12]; //This will set the instance variable to 12.
NSLog(#"The value is %d",[d getMyInt]);
Also, you can override these methods in your implementation(.m) file for error handling or lazy instantiation.
I understand that id is for any Object type even objects that do not inherit NSObject such as things from Cocoa. I have been told to almost always use id but what if I were making an API and had a method that I wanted to make it clear that it should only take a certain type of object such an object called Animal, would I still use
(id) animal
or would I do
(Animal) animal
Thanks so much!
id is a generic pointer to an object -- it's like void *, except that the pointer must point to an Objective-C object. So yes, you could use id in most situations where a more specific object pointer type would work, but it's usually better to use the more specific type:
- (id)animal; // OK if 'animal' could be any type of object
- (Animal*)animal; // much better if you know that 'animal' points to an object of type 'Animal'
You'll find plenty of examples if you look at any Cocoa or Cocoa Touch class. Let's look at a little bit of UIView:
- (BOOL)isDescendantOfView:(UIView *)view; // returns YES for self.
- (UIView *)viewWithTag:(NSInteger)tag; // recursive search. includes self
As you can see, the first method takes a UIView* as a parameter. If you try to pass something other than a pointer to an instance of UIView, the compiler will complain.
The second method returns a UIView*, and you can use the result directly as the receiver of other messages that UIView understands:
[[topView viewWithTag:someTag] removeFromSuperview];
Being specific about the types of parameters and return values lets the compiler help you make sure that you're sending appropriate messages to your objects and getting appropriate values back.
You can use any type starting from Animal and then up through inheritance chain to NSObject and id. Any would be valid. But in most cases you need to use just Animal because this is the very type you need to work with
For the Objective-C gurus:
Suppose I have a simple method like so:
-(id)getValue{ return [NSNumber numberWithDouble:5.0]; }
Now, suppose within some other method I call the (id)getValue method like so:
NSNumber* myValue = [self getValue];
or what if I call it like this instead:
NSNumber* myValue = (NSNumber*)[self getValue];
The question is: Obviously these lines are equivalent but one of them utilizes an explicit cast. So what is the correct or best-practice way of doing this. It seams to me the cast is unnecessary since when it is placed in the pointer myValue, it will be type-safe at this point anyways (which is something I want) so the cast is basically pointless.
Let me just add that I'm sure people will point out: Why don't you just return (NSNumber*) from the getValue method but in my case I want to have the flexibility to return whatever I want much like the built in NSDictionary class returns id when you call: objectForKey because it allows you to place any type of NSObject or subclass inside of it. In other words my getValue method will not always be returning an NSNumber. Also consider this example is contrived because I am just concerned about whether to cast or not.
Thank you in advance,
-Ralph
The only reason to cast objects is to make the compiler happy. (Sometimes it also helps readability.) For example, you have to cast when making a property access directly on an object you're getting out of an array or dictionary:
((Foo *)[myArray objectAtIndex:0]).bar;
If you don't do the cast, the compiler can't do the property lookup, and will complain.
When you're getting an object from a method that returns id, it's impossible for the compiler to know what its actual type is. There isn't really any "type-safety", because id is a generic pointer; all the compiler can and will enforce is that the method says it returns some Objective-C object. It is perfectly happy to assign a generic pointer to any typed pointer.* (This is actually an advantage for containers, obviously.) Since the type of the variable to which you're assigning already documents the actual return type, I'd say there's no need for the cast.
As an aside, you shouldn't be calling your method getX. That has a specific meaning in Cocoa; methods which "get" something pass in a pointer to a pointer, which is then filled by the method. See -[NSArray getObjects:range:] as an example.
*The type will be enforced at run-time, of course, in the sense that sending messages to which the object does not respond will cause an error.
I'm trying to pass an NSString by reference but it doesn't work.
This is the function:
+(void)fileName:(NSString *) file
{
file = #"folder_b";
}
and this is the call:
NSString *file;
[function fileName:file];
nslog(#"%#",file); // and there is nothing in the string....
What I must do to pass my string by reference?
If you want to return a value, then return a value. Pass by reference in Cocoa/iOS is largely limited to NSError**.
Given:
+(void)fileName:(NSString *) file
Then do:
+(NSString *) fileName;
And be done with it.
If you need to return more than one value at a time, that begs for a structure or, more often, a class.
In Objective-C, pass by reference smells like you are doing it wrong.
Pass by reference in Objective-C is reserved largely for returning NSError* information about a recoverable failure, where the return value of the method itself indicates whether or not the requested task succeeded or failed (you can pass NULL as the NSError** argument to allow the method to optimize away creating said error metadata).
Pass by references is also used to retrieve interior state of objects where the return value is effectively a multi-value. I.e. methods from AppKit like the following. In these cases, the pass-by-reference arguments are typically either optional or are acting as secondary return values.
They are used quite sparingly across the API. There is certainly use for pass by reference, but -- as said above -- doing so should be quite rare and rarer still in application code. In many cases -- and in some of the cases below, potentially -- a better pattern would be to create a class that can encapsulate the state and then return an instance of said class instead of pass by reference.
NSWorkspace.h:- (BOOL)getInfoForFile:(NSString *)fullPath application:(NSString **)appName type:(NSString **)type;
NSTextView.h:- (void)smartInsertForString:(NSString *)pasteString replacingRange:(NSRange)charRangeToReplace beforeString:(NSString **)beforeString afterString:(NSString **)afterString;
NSAttributedString.h:- (BOOL)readFromURL:(NSURL *)url options:(NSDictionary *)options documentAttributes:(NSDictionary **)dict;
NSNib.h:- (BOOL)instantiateWithOwner:(id)owner topLevelObjects:(NSArray **)topLevelObjects NS_AVAILABLE_MAC(10_8);
NSSpellChecker.h:- (NSRange)checkGrammarOfString:(NSString *)stringToCheck startingAt:(NSInteger)startingOffset language:(NSString *)language wrap:(BOOL)wrapFlag inSpellDocumentWithTag:(NSInteger)tag details:(NSArray **)details NS_AVAILABLE_MAC(10_5);
I believe you're looking for:
+ (void)fileName:(NSString **)file
{
*file = #"folder_b";
}
What's really done here is we're working with a pointer to a pointer to an object. Check C (yup, just plain C) guides for "pointer dereference" for further info.
(...But as has been pointed out repeatedly, in this particular example, there's no reason to pass by reference at all: just return a value.)
Passing a pointer to your object is the Objective C (and C) way of passing by reference.
I agree with 'bbum' that a perceived need to pass by reference is a signal to think about what you are doing; however, it is by no means the case that there are not legitimate reasons to pass by reference.
You should not create classes willy-nilly every time you have a function or method that needs to return more than one value. Consider why you are returning more than one value and if it makes sense to create a class for that then do so. Otherwise, just pass in pointers.
-Just my 2 cents
Try this
+(void)filename:(NSString **)file {
*file=#"folder_b";
}
and send the file as &file like:
NSString *file;
[function fileName:&file];
nslog(#"%#",file);
hope this will work.
I suspect this is because NSString is immutable. Have you tried NSMutableString?
take example:
-(void)setName:(NSString *)name age:(int)age;
How would you call this method (in other words, the method's name is setName but what is the "age" parameter doing in there) and what do the types in parentheses mean? Is it just a way to tell the compiler what types are being returned?
[ myObject setName: #"Adam" age:18 ];
The age parameter is the second parameter in the method signature.
The types in parentheses are the expected types for the argument. e.g. name is expecting only an NSString and age is expecting only an int.
The - means that the method is an instance method, not a class method, which is denoted using a + instead.
The type in parentheses right after the - is the return type.
This is a great site for learning the basics of Objective-C: CocoaDevCentral
To answer, one would need a bit more information, but I'll be guessing this is from some sort of class named aClass, and you have an instance of aClass, named instance.
-(void)setName:(NSString *)name age:(int)age;
means you have a method, named setName:age:, that needs two arguments, one NSString, one int, and it returns a void. As it has a - as it's first character, it is an instance method.
[instance setName:#"James Hargrove" age:21];
Would call setName:age: on the instance.
(The instance should be created using, say,
aClass *instance = [[aClass alloc] init];
which would create an instance of aClass named instance, and initialize it.
This is the standard Objective-C method syntax. This could be read as:
A method with no return value (void) that
sets the name of the object (an NSString * parameter)
and the age (and integer
parameter).
Dissecting the method:
"-" The hyphen states that this is an instance method.
(void) The return type is void - or
no return type expected
setName:(NSString *) The first
parameter to be passed is the "name"
and is an NSString *.
age:(int)age The second parameter
to be passed is the "age" and is
an int.
In reality, the method syntax is actually quite self-documenting once understood (and quite foreign if you're used to more tradition C/C++ or Java syntax).
The actual example of the call of this method would be:
[someObject setName:#"Rich" age:101];
The method name is actually this:
setName:age:
You call it like this:
[someObject setName:#"Alice" age:20];
setName:age: is also the unique signature of that method, and with that signature you can call that method on any object you wish. For example:
NSArray* objects = ...
SEL mySelector = #selector(setName:age:);
for (id object in objects)
{
if ([object respondsToSelector:mySelector])
{
[object setName:#"Alice" age:20];
}
}
what do the types in parentheses mean? Is it just a way to tell the compiler what types are being returned?
Yes, those are "C casts". If everything was an object you wouldn't need those, but because you can pass and return plain old C types to and from your methods, the compiler needs to know the types of your parameters and return values.
You'd call this method like so:
[classInstance setName:#"name" age:123];
The first instance of "age:" indicates that the method receives another parameter, called "age" when used in the implementation of the method.
The types in parentheses indicate the types of data that are expected for each parameter, with the exception of the first one, "void", which means that this method returns nothing.
So, you would call this method as follows.
Say it is a method of an object named foo (of class Foo). Then you would call:
[foo setName:someName age:someAge].
If it were a static method, it would be preceded by a + instead of a minus as follows:
+(void)setName:(NSString *)name age:(int)age;
Then you would call
[Foo setName:someName age:someAge] //use the classname instead of the object name
The types are indeed there for type-checking by the compiler. You'll get warnings if you pass the wrong sort of data, and you will get warnings if your header doesn't match your implementation.
You can actually write Obj-C functions in a couple of different styles though, omitting some of this stuff. You can even write straight up C-style.