Two related questions:
When you use [NSSet setWithArray:], does it remove duplicate object for you automatically?
How can you tell NSSet exactly what you want "duplicate" to mean? I.e. if you have a bunch of "College course" objects, each with a name and section number, and you wanted to transfer to an NSSet, keeping only one of each college course for a given name (for example, if you had three sections of Calculus, how would you tell it to only keep one section of calculus, even if their section numbers are different, so they're not perceived as identical by default).
Thanks! Let me know if that question was unclear at all. I was having trouble figuring out a way to word it.
Edit: This question is specific to NSManagedObjects, whose isEqual: method cannot be overridden.
From the documentation:
If the same object appears more than once in array, it is added
only once to the returned set.
Equality is determined here as throughout Cocoa with the -isEqual: method (and the -hash method). If you want two custom objects to be considered equal, you should override these appropriately, and you must override both. These are generally used so that objects that really are equivalent and generally interchangeable (but are separate objects) can be seen as such. In your example, it sounds like the college course objects really are "different" (ie, they represent different classes, even if they might share the same overall "calculus" topic), so it seems problematic to call those object instances "equal" if this is a large scale project/code base. In your case, you might consider adding the object to the set one by one and do your own comparisons as you add to make sure you get one of each "topic".
Related
I haven't checked many dialects yet (in Pharo Association is a subclass of LookupKey, which is a subclass of Magnitude) but I presume this is fairly common.
Isn't this definition counterintuitive? Associations usually take part in unordered collections and I don't think a Smalltalker ever takes into account that their keys could be sent #<=. What I would like to know is whether this is something we inherited from old implementations of Smalltalk and never bothered to challenge, or it is just me who am missing something. Bottomline: has anyone ever used this feature?
I don't think that Dictionary needs that; all it needs are = and hash.
However, you often want to get a list of associations and sort them later (eg. to show them in some sorted list). Then, it is nice to have an order defined already.
And the cost is only a "<" method in Association (or LookupKey, if that is the superclass), so it comes almost for free by inheriting from Magnitude instead of Object.
I'm studying Cocoa collections currently and my research has brought to Mike Ash's post on object equality and hashing.
Here's an exerpt from the post:
Because of the semantics of hash, if you override isEqual: then you must override hash. If you don't, then you risk having two objects which are equal but which don't have the same hash. If you use these objects in a dictionary, set, or something else which uses a hash table, then hilarity will ensue.
Unfortunately the author doesn't get further in details of what the hilarity will occur and my curiosity doesn't let me just leave it without trying to dig deeper. So the question is: what exactly will happen if i have two equal objects with different hash values and i put these objects into one collection? What sort of problem i will run into?
The answer is in this section from Mike's post
A hash table is basically a big array with special indexing. Objects are placed into an array with an index that corresponds to their hash. The hash is essentially a pseudorandom number generated from the object's properties. The idea is to make the index random enough to make it unlikely for two objects to have the same hash, but have it be fully reproducible. When an object is inserted, the hash is used to determine where it goes. When an object is looked up, its hash is used to determine where to look.
In more formal terms, the hash of an object is defined such that two objects have an identical hash if they are equal. Note that the reverse is not true, and can't be: two objects can have an identical hash and not be equal. You want to try to avoid this as much as possible, because when two unequal objects have the same hash (called a collision) then the hash table has to take special measures to handle this, which is slow. However, it's provably impossible to avoid it completely.
What it means is that you will have your 2 objects which claim to be equal. You add the first as the key in a dictionary with some value. Then you try to extract that value using the other object as the key. And it doesn't work. It should, because your objects are equal. But the initial hash lookup failed.
To be clear, this might not happen. It might work fine for some objects and fail for others. The point is, if you don't implement both methods, you don't know what's going to happen.
Putting aside the desire to know "why", you should just look at Apple's documentation.
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Protocols/NSObject_Protocol/Reference/NSObject.html%23//apple_ref/occ/intfm/NSObject/isKindOfClass:
If two objects are equal, they must have the same hash value.
All other discussion is interesting from an academic perspective, but fundamentally whether you agree with Apples rules or not, you must abide by them if you want to use the Foundation frameworks.
What Mike and the above poster say seem to be true, for the current incarnation of NSDictionary - there is no guarantee that the same implementation will remain in-place for future releases. However, whatever Apple might replace it with, it will (probably) retain all of the same guarantees and restrictions.
Let’s say I have a method that populates a list with some kind of objects. What are the advantages and disadvantages of following method designs?
void populate (ArrayList<String> list, other parameters ...)
ArrayList<String> populate(other parameters ...)
Which one I should prefer?
This looks like a general issue about method design but I couldn't find a satisfying answer on google, probably for not using the right keywords.
The second one seems more functional and thread safe to me. I'd prefer it in most cases. (Like every rule, there are exceptions.)
The owner of the populate method could return an immutable List (why ArrayList?).
It's also thread safe if there is no state modified in the populate method. Only passed in parameters are used, and these can also be immutable.
Other than what #duffymo mentioned, the second one is easier to understand, thus use: it is obvious what its input and output is.
Advantages to the in-out parameter:
You don't have to create as many objects. In languages like C or C++, where allocation and deallocation can be expensive, that can be a plus. In Java/C#, not so much -- GC makes allocation cheap and deallocation all but invisible, so creating objects isn't as big a deal. (You still shouldn't create them willy-nilly, but if you need one, the overhead isn't as bad as in some manual-allocation languages.)
You get to specify the type of the list. Potential plus if you need to pass that array to some other code you don't control later.
Disadvantages:
Readability issues.
In almost all languages that support function arguments, the first case is assumed to mean "do something with the entries in this list". Modifying args violates the Priciple of Least Astonishment. The second is assumed to mean "give me a list of stuff", which is what you're after.
Every time you say "ArrayList", or even "List", you take away a bit of flexibility. You add some overhead to your API. What if i don't want to create an ArrayList before calling your method? I shouldn't have to, if the method's whole purpose in life is to return me some entries. That's the API's job.
Encapsulation issues:
The method being passed a list to fill can't assume anything about that list (even that it's a list at all; it could be null).
The method passing the list can't guarantee anything about what the method does with it. If it's working correctly, sure, the API docs can say "this method won't destroy existing entries". But considering the chance of bugs, that may not be worth trusting. At least if the method returns its own list, the caller doesn't have to worry about what was in it before. And it doesn't have to worry about a bug from a thousand miles away corrupting data it should never have affected.
Thread safety issues.
The list could be locked by another thread, meaning if we try and lock on it now it could potentially lock up the app.
Or, if not locked, it could still be modified by another thread, in which case we're no less screwed. Unless you're going to write extra code to handle concurrent-modification exceptions everywhere.
Returning a new list means every call to the method can have its own list. No thread can mess with another thread's return value, unless the class is very badly designed.
Side point: Being able to specify the type of the list often leads to dependencies on the type of the list. Notice how you're passing ArrayLists around everywhere. You're painting yourself into corners by saying "This is an ArrayList" when you don't need to, but when you're passing it to a dozen methods, that's a dozen methods you'll have to change. (Not entirely related, but only slightly tangential. You could change the types to List rather than ArrayList and get rid of this. But the more you're passing that list around, the more places you'll need to change.)
Short version: Unless you have a damn good reason, use the first syntax only if you're using the existing contents of the list in your method. IE: if you're modifying it, or doing something with the existing values. If you intend to return a list of entries, then return a List of entries.
The second method is the preferred way for many reasons.
primarily because the function signature is more clear and shows what its intentions are.
It is actually recommended that you NEVER change the value of a parameter that is passed in to a function unless you explicitly mark it as an "out" parameter.
it will also be easier to use in expressions
and it will be easier to change in the future. including taking it to a more functional approach (for threading, etc.) if you would like to
I have a "parent" Obj-C object containing (in a collection) a bunch of objects whose instance variables point to one another, possibly circularly (fear not, no retaining going on between these "siblings"). I write the parent object to XML, which of course involves (among other things) writing out its "children", in no particular order, and due to the possible circularity, I replace these references between the children with unique IDs that each child has.
The problem is reading this XML back in... as I create one "child", I come across an ID, but there's no guarantee the object it refers to has been created yet. Since the references are possibly circular, there isn't even an order in which to read them that solves this problem.
What do I do? My current solution is to replace (in the actual instance variables) the references with strings containing the unique IDs. This is nasty, though, because to use these instance variables, instead of something like [oneObject aSibling] I now have to do something like [theParent childWithID:[oneObject aSiblingID]]. I suppose I could create an aSibling method to simplify things, but it feels like there's a cleaner way than all this. Is there?
This sounds an awful lot like you are re-inventing NSCoding as it handles circular references, etc... Now, there might be a good reason to re-invent that wheel. Only you can answer that question.
In any case, sounds like you want a two pass unarchival process.
Pass 1: Grab all the objects out of the backing store and reconstitute. As each object comes out, shove it in a dictionary or map with the UID as the key. Whenever an object contains a UID, register the object as needing to be fixed up; add it to a set or array that you keep around during unarchival.
Pass 2: Walk the set or array of objects that need to be fixed up and fix 'em up, replacing the UIDs with objects from the map you built in pass #1.
I hit a bit of parse error on that last paragraph. Assuming your classes are sensibly declared, they ought to be able to repair themselves on the fly.
(All things considered, this is exactly the kind of data structure that is much easier to implement in a GC'd environment. If you are targeting Mac OS X, not the iPhone, turning on GC is going to make your life easier, most likely)
Java's serialization process does much the same thing. Every object it writes out, it puts in a 'previously seen objects' table. When it comes to writing out a subsequent reference, if it's seen the object before, then it writes out a code which indicates that it's a previously seen object from the list. When the reverse occurs, whenever it sees such a reference, it replaces it on the fly with the instance before.
That approach means that you don't have to use this map for all instances, but rather the substitution happens only for objects you've seen a second time. However, you still need to be able to uniquely reference the first instance you've got written, whether by some pointer to a part in the data structure or not is dependent on what you're writing.
Note: Although my particular context is Objective-C, my question actually transcends programming language choice. Also, I tagged it as "subjective" since someone is bound to complain otherwise, but I personally think it's almost entirely objective. Also, I'm aware of this related SO question, but since this was a bigger issue, I thought it better to make this a separate question. Please don't criticize the question without reading and understanding it fully. Thanks!
Most of us are familiar with the dictionary abstract data type that stores key-value associations, whether we call it a map, dictionary, associative array, hash, etc. depending on our language of choice. A simple definition of a dictionary can be summarized by three properties:
Values are accessed by key (as opposed to by index, like an array).
Each key is associated with a value.
Each key must be unique.
Any other properties are arguably conveniences or specializations for a particular purpose. For example, some languages (especially scripting languages such as PHP and Python) blur the line between dictionaries and arrays and do provide ordering for dictionaries. As useful as this can be, such additions are not a fundamental characteristics of a dictionary. In a pure sense, the actual implementation details of a dictionary are irrelevant.
For my question, the most important observation is that the order in which keys are enumerated is not defined — a dictionary may provide keys in whatever order it finds most convenient, and it is up to the client to organize them as desired.
I've created custom dictionaries that impose specific key orderings, including natural sorted order (based on object comparisons) and insertion order. It's obvious to name the former some variant on SortedDictionary (which I've actually already implemented), but the latter is more problematic. I've seen LinkedHashMap and LinkedMap (Java), OrderedDictionary (.NET), OrderedDictionary (Flash), OrderedDict (Python), and OrderedDictionary (Objective-C). Some of these are more mature, some are more proof-of-concept.
LinkedHashMap is named according to implementation in the tradition of Java collections — "linked" because it uses a doubly-linked list to track insertion order, and "hash" because it subclasses HashMap. Besides the fact that user shouldn't need to worry about that, the class name doesn't really even indicate what it does. Using ordered seems like the consensus among existing code, but web searches on this topic also revealed understandable confusion between "ordered" and "sorted", and I feel the same. The .NET implementation even has a comment about the apparent misnomer, and suggests that it should be "IndexedDictionary" instead, owing to the fact that you can retrieve and insert objects at a specific point in the ordering.
I'm designing a framework and APIs and I want to name the class as intelligently as possible. From my standpoint, indexed would probably work (depending on how people interpret it, and based on the advertised functionality of the dictionary), ordered is imprecise and has too much potential for confusion, and linked "is right out" (apologies to Monty Python). ;-)
As a user, what name would make the most sense to you? Is there a particular name that says exactly what the class does? (I'm not averse to using slightly longer names like InsertionOrderDictionary if appropriate.)
Edit: Another strong possibility (discussed in my answer below) is IndexedDictionary. I don't really like "insertion order" because it doesn't make sense if you allow the user to insert keys at a specific index, reorder the keys, etc.
I vote OrderedDictionary, for the following reasons:
"Indexed" is never used in Cocoa classes, except in one instance. It always appears as a noun (NSIndexSet, NSIndexPath, objectAtIndex:, etc). There is only one instance when "Index" appears as a verb, which is on NSPropertyDescription's "indexed" property: isIndexed and setIndexed. NSPropertyDescription is roughly analogous to a table column in a database, where "indexing" refers to optimizing to speed up search times. It would therefore make sense that with NSPropertyDescription being part of the Core Data framework, that "isIndexed" and "setIndexed" would be equivalent to an index in a SQL database. Therefore, to call it "IndexedDictionary" would seem redundant, since indices in databases are created to speed up lookup time, but a dictionary already has O(1) lookup time. However, to call it "IndexDictionary" would also be a misnomer, since an "index" in Cocoa refers to position, not order. The two are semantically different.
I understand your concern over "OrderedDictionary", but the precedent has already been set in Cocoa. When users want to maintain a specific sequence, they use "ordered": -[NSApplication orderedDocuments], -[NSWindow orderedIndex], -[NSApplication orderedWindows], etc. So, John Pirie has mostly the right idea.
However, you don't want to make insertion into the dictionary a burden on your users. They'll want to create a dictionary once and then have it maintain an appropriate order. They won't even want to request objects in a specific order. Order specification should be done during initialization.
Therefore, I recommend making OrderedDictonary a class cluster, with private subclasses of InsertionOrderDictionary and NaturalOrderDictionary and CustomOrderDictionary. Then, the user simply creates an OrderedDictionary like so:
OrderedDictionary * dict = [[OrderedDictionary alloc] initWithOrder:kInsertionOrder];
//or kNaturalOrder, etc
For a CustomOrderDictionary, you could have them give you a comparison selector, or even (if they're running 10.6) a block. I think this would provide the most flexibility for future expansion while still maintain an appropriate name.
I vote for InsertionOrderDictionary. You nailed it.
Strong vote for OrderedDictionary.
The word "ordered" means exactly what you are advertising: that in iterating through a list of items, there is a defined order to selection of those items. "Indexed" is an implementation word -- it talks more to how the ordering is achieved. Index, linked list, tree... the user doesn't care; that aspect of the data structure should be hidden. "Ordered" is the exact word for the additional feature you are offering, regardless of how you get it done.
Further, it seems like the choice of ordering could be at the user's option. Any reason why you couldn't create methods on your datatype that allow the user to switch from, say, alphabetical ordering to insertion-time ordering? In the default case, a user would choose a particular ordering and stick with it, in which case implementation would be no less efficient than if you created specialized subclasses for each ordering method. And in some less-used cases, the developer might actually wish to use any of a number of different orderings for the same data, depending on app context. (I can think of specific projects I've worked on where I would have loved to have such a data structure available.)
Call it OrderedDictionary, because that's precisely what it is. (Frankly, I have more of a problem with the use of the word "Dictionary", because that word heavily implies ordering, where popular implementations of such don't provide it, but that's my pet peeve. You really should just be able to say "Dictionary" and know that the ordering is alphabetical -- because that's what a dictionary IS -- but that argument is too late for existing implementations in the popular languages.) And allow the user to access in what order he chooses.
Since posting this question, I'm starting to lean towards something like IndexedDictionary or IndexableDictionary. While it is useful to be able to maintain arbitrary key ordering, limiting that to insertion ordering only seems like a needless restriction. Plus, my class already supports indexOfKey: and keyAtIndex:, which are (purposefully) analagous to NSArray's indexOfObject: and objectAtIndex:. I'm strongly considering adding insertObject:forKey:atIndex: which matches up with NSMutableArray's insertObject:atIndex:.
Everyone knows that inserting in the middle of an array is inefficient, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to on the rare occasions that it's truly useful. (Besides, the implementation could secretly use a doubly-linked list or any other suitable structure for tracking the ordering if needed...)
The big question: is "indexed" or "indexable" as vague or potentially confusing as "ordered"? Would people think of database indexes, or book indexes, etc.? Would it be detrimental if they assumed it was implemented with an array, or might that simplify user understanding of the functionality?
Edit: This name makes even more sense given the fact that I'm considering adding methods that work with an NSIndexSet in the future. (NSArray has -objectsAtIndexes: as well as methods for adding/removing observers for objects at given indexes.)
What about KeyedArray?
As you said in your last paragraph, I think that InsertionOrder(ed)Dict(ionary) is pretty unambiguous; I don't see how it could be interpreted in any way other than that the keys would be returned in the order they were inserted.
By decoupling the indexed order from the insertion order, doesn't this simply boil down to keeping an array and Dictionary in a single object? I guess my vote for this type of object is IndexedKeyDictionary
In C#:
public class IndexedKeyDictionary<TKey, TValue> {
List<TKey> _keys;
Dictionary<TKey, TValue> _dictionary;
...
public GetValueAtIndex(int index) {
return _dictionary[_keys[index]];
}
public Insert(TKey key, TValue val, int index) {
_dictionary.Add(key, val);
// do some array massaging (splice, etc.) to fit the new key
_keys[index] = key;
}
public SwapKeyIndexes(TKey k1, TKey k2) {
// swap the indexes of k1 and k2, assuming they exist in _keys
}
}
What would be really cool is indexed values...so we have a way to sort the values and get the new key order. Like if the values were graph coordinates, and we could read the keys (bin names) as we move up/down along the coordinate plane. What would you call that data structure? An IndexedValueDictionary?
At first glance I'm with the first reply -- InsertionOrderDictionary, though it's a bit ambiguous as to what "InsertionOrder" means at first glance.
What you're describing sounds to me almost exactly like a C++ STL map. From what I understand, a map is a dictionary that has additional rules, including ordering. The STL simply calls it "map", which I think is fairly apt. The trick with map is you can't really give the inheritance a nod without making it redundant -- i.e. "MapDictionary". That's just too redundant. "Map" is a bit too basic and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation.
Though "CHMap" might not be a bad choice after looking at your documentation link.
Maybe "CHMappedDictionary"? =)
Best of luck.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification, you learn something new every day. =)
Is the only difference that allKeys returns keys in a specific order? If so, I would simply add allKeysSorted and allKeysOrderdByInsertion methods to the standard NSDictionary API.
What is the goal of this insertion order dictionary? What benefits does it give the programmer vs. an array?