How can we identify any particular object is kind of block or not?
for example,
NSSet *set =[NSSet setWithObjects:
#"name1",
#"name2",
[^{ /* ..... some code */ } copy],
nil];
How can we find out which object from set is kind of block?
There is a safer way to determine if something is a block without actually using private api or constructing a class using the private string name:
- (BOOL)isBlock:(id)item {
id block = ^{};
Class blockClass = [block class];
while ([blockClass superclass] != [NSObject class]) {
blockClass = [blockClass superclass];
}
return [item isKindOfClass:blockClass];
}
Wrap your block in a class of your own:
BlockWrapper *blockWrapper = [BlockWrapper wrapperWithBlock:^{ … }];
Check for the type and extract the actual block:
if ([obj isKindOfClass:[BlockWrapper class]]) {
codeBlock = [(BlockWrapper*)obj block];
}
There is no supported way to do this. You must keep track of what objects are blocks, and what their type signatures are.
Do you have a practical use case for a set of mixed strings and blocks?
It's possible, but I wouldn't recommend doing this, because NSBlock is not a public class and its name might change in the future:
if ([obj isKindOfClass:NSClassFromString(#"NSBlock")]) {
NSLog(#"It's a block!");
}
If you only have strings and blocks, just check ![thing isKindOfClass:[NSString class]]. i.e. invert your test.
Likewise, if you have strings, numbers and blocks, check that thing is not a string or a number, and in that case it must (by deduction) be a block. Either that, or your program is incorrect and will crash.
I suppose that ![thing isKindOfClass:[NSObject class]], while not technically correct (you don't have to subclass NSObject), will probably get you want you want.
Related
I am passing an ivar (NSMutableArray) into some method. I was expecting that if I modify the object inside the function, it would be reflected outside the function, but in this case I need to set the object; something like the following:
- (void) someMethod:(SMResponseObject *)response onData:(NSMutableArray *)imAnIvar {
imAnIvar = [response objects];
//Some other stuff
}
But I noticed that the memory reference of imAnIvar inside the function changes when I set it, and given that, the actual ivar doesn't change. I understand that the problem is that I'm changing the reference of the object inside the method, so it stops pointing to the ivar and then it points to some other random memory direction.
I thought about one solution to this problem, and it can be to ensure that the ivar is not nil before calling the function and do something like this:
- (void) someMethod:(SMResponseObject *)response onData:(NSMutableArray *)imAnIvar {
NSMutableArray *data = [response objects];
[arrayForTableView removeAllObjects];
for(id element in data){
[imAnIvar addObject:element];
}
//Some other stuff
}
So I use the original object instead of setting it directly. The problem is that in order for this to work I need to ensure that the ivar is not nil, which I think is not clean, because I'll need to do something like this on every call to the method:
if(!_ivar){
//alloc it
}
So my question is: Is there a way to force the local scope variable to point to the original variable even if I'm setting it? if not, is there any cleaner way to make this work?
Do you mean this?
- (void)setFoo:(SomeClass **)objPtr
{
*objPtr = someOtherObject;
}
// call it as:
SomeClass *foo = someObject;
NSLog(#"Before: %#", foo);
[self setFoo:&foo];
NSLog(#"After: %#", foo);
Why not use a getter for the array so that you need not check for the array being nil while using it?
-(NSMutableArray *)iAmAnIvar {
if(_iAmAnIvar == nil) {
_iAmAnIvar = [NSMutableArray array];
}
return _iAmAnIvar;
}
And when you have to set a value to the array, as you mentioned in your question, you could use
[self.iAmAnIvar removeAllObjects];
[self.iAmAnIvar addObject:someObj];
I believe you can use the - (id)copy; function of NSObject
so your code might look like this:
- (void)someFunction:(NSString *)someArg
{
NSString *str = [someArg copy];
}
In objective-C I find myself creating alot of Mutable objects and then returning them as non mutable objects. Is the way I am doing it here, simply returning the NSMutableSet as an NSSet a good practice? I was thinking maybe I should specify that i make a copy of it.
/** Returns all the names of the variables used in a given
* program. If non are used it returns nil */
+ (NSSet *)variablesUsedInProgram:(id)program
{
NSMutableSet* variablesUsed = [[NSMutableSet alloc]init];
if ([program isKindOfClass:[NSArray class]]) {
for (NSString *str in program)
{
if ([str isEqual:#"x"] || [str isEqual:#"y"] || [str isEqual:#"a"] || [str isEqual:#"b"])
[variablesUsed addObject:str];
}
}
if ([variablesUsed count] > 0) {
return variablesUsed;
} else {
return nil;
}
}
If I were you, I would do it this way.
+ (NSSet *)variablesUsedInProgram:(id)program
{
NSSet *variablesUsed;
if ([program isKindOfClass:[NSArray class]]) {
NSPredicate *predicate = [NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:#"SELF = 'x' or SELF = 'y' or SELF = 'z'"];
variablesUsed = [NSSet setWithArray:[program filteredArrayUsingPredicate:predicate]];
}
int count;
return (count = [variablesUsed count]) > 0 ? variablesUsed : nil;
}
I find using predicate to filter array quite comprehensive and easy. Rather than dealing with creating a new mutable type and then testing certain condition, adding until the loop; in this scenario, it seems to be easier to use predicate. Hope this helps you.
It depends how much safety you require. If you return the object as an NSSet it will still be an NSMutableSet, so it could easily be cast back to one and modified.
Certainly, if you're creating a public API, I'd recommend returning a copy. For in internal project, perhaps the method signature already makes the intention clear enough.
Its, worth noting that, generally the performance impact of returning a copy is negligible - copying an immutable instance is effectively free whereas each copy sent to a mutable-passing-as-immutable will create another copy. So I would say its good practice to default to.
No. This is an absolutely correct OOP approach (it takes advantage of polymorphism). Every NSMutableSet is a proper NSSet. Don't copy superfluously.
Not a full answer here, consider NSProxy's one, but I want to clarify something.
In your case you create your object from scratch, and you don't set any ivar to point to that object. In my opinion in a good percentage of cases you don't need to make a copy of the mutable object returned. But if there is a good reason to deny the class client from mutating the class, then you should copy the variable.
Consider a property like this:
#property (nonatomic,assign) NSSet* set;
The class client could do this:
NSMutableSet* set= ... ; // inizialized to some value
classInstance.set= set;
// Mutate the set
Once mutated the set it could make the class be in an inconsistent state.
That's why when I have a property with the type of a class that has also a mutable version, I always put copy instead of assign in the property.
Is it possible to create an Objective-C class that can have an arbitrary number of dynamic properties at runtime?
I want to be able to call mySpecialClass.anyProperty and intercept this inside my class to be able to provide my own custom implementation that can then return an NSString (for instance) at runtime with raising an exception. Obviously this all has to compile.
Ideal would be if I could refer to my properties using something similar to the new literal syntax, e.g. mySpecialClass["anyProperty"].
I guess in a way I want to create something like a dynamic NSDictionary with no CFDictionary backing store, that executes 2 custom methods on property getting and setting respectively, with the property name passed in to these accessor methods so they can decide what to do.
There are at least two ways to do this.
Subscripting
Use objectForKeyedSubscript: and setObject:forKeyedSubscript:
#property (nonatomic,strong) NSMutableDictionary *properties;
- (id)objectForKeyedSubscript:(id)key {
return [[self properties] valueForKey:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#",key]];
}
- (void)setObject:(id)object forKeyedSubscript:(id <NSCopying>)key {
[[self properties] setValue:object forKey:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#",key]];
}
Person *p = [Person new];
p[#"name"] = #"Jon";
NSLog(#"%#",p[#"name"]);
resolveInstanceMethod:
This is the objc_sendMsg executed by the runtime for all methods:
If you look at the bottom, you have the opportunity to resolveInstanceMethod:, which lets you redirect the method call to one of your choosing. To answer your question, you need to write a generic getter and setter that looks-up a value on a dictionary ivar:
// generic getter
static id propertyIMP(id self, SEL _cmd) {
return [[self properties] valueForKey:NSStringFromSelector(_cmd)];
}
// generic setter
static void setPropertyIMP(id self, SEL _cmd, id aValue) {
id value = [aValue copy];
NSMutableString *key = [NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) mutableCopy];
// delete "set" and ":" and lowercase first letter
[key deleteCharactersInRange:NSMakeRange(0, 3)];
[key deleteCharactersInRange:NSMakeRange([key length] - 1, 1)];
NSString *firstChar = [key substringToIndex:1];
[key replaceCharactersInRange:NSMakeRange(0, 1) withString:[firstChar lowercaseString]];
[[self properties] setValue:value forKey:key];
}
And then implement resolveInstanceMethod: to add the requested method to the class.
+ (BOOL)resolveInstanceMethod:(SEL)aSEL {
if ([NSStringFromSelector(aSEL) hasPrefix:#"set"]) {
class_addMethod([self class], aSEL, (IMP)setPropertyIMP, "v#:#");
} else {
class_addMethod([self class], aSEL,(IMP)propertyIMP, "##:");
}
return YES;
}
You could also do it returning a NSMethodSignature for the method, which is then wrapped in a NSInvocation and passed to forwardInvocation:, but adding the method is faster.
Here is a gist that runs in CodeRunner. It doesn't handle myClass["anyProperty"] calls.
You're asking different things. If you want to be able to use the bracket syntax mySpecialClass[#"anyProperty"] on instances of your class, it is very easy. Just implement the methods:
- (id)objectForKeyedSubscript:(id)key
{
return ###something based on the key argument###
}
- (void)setObject:(id)object forKeyedSubscript:(id <NSCopying>)key
{
###set something with object based on key####
}
It will be called everytime you use the bracket syntax in your source code.
Otherwise if you want to create properties at runtime, there are different ways to proceed, take a look at NSObject's forwardInvocation: method, or look at the Objective-C Runtime Reference for functions to dynamically alter a class...
Guillaume is right. forwardInvocation: is the way to go. This answer gives some more details: method_missing-like functionality in objective-c (i.e. dynamic delegation at run time)
This has even more details: Equivalent of Ruby method_missing in Objective C / iOS
And these are some other lesser known Obj-C features that might help you: Hidden features of Objective-C
Enjoy!
Is it "better style" to send a message and hope the object responds, or to check to see if it responds to a selector and have some sort of fallback if it doesn't.
For example:
- (NSString *)stringForObjectValue:(id)obj {
if ([obj respondsToSelector:#selector(intValue)]) {
NSString *roman = [self formatRomanNumber:[obj intValue] resultSoFar:#""];
return roman;
} else {
return [NSString stringWithFormat:#"can't format a %#", [obj class]];
}
}
vs.
- (NSString *)stringForObjectValue:(id)obj {
NSString *roman = format_roman(#"", [obj intValue]);
return roman;
}
(the example is from a NSNumberFormatter subclass...but it could be from a NSObjectFormatter subclass...)
If you're not 100% sure that all instances that come to your (stringForObjectValue) function respond to selector then you must perform that check to avoid crashes in runtime.
How to handle the cases when obj does not respond to intValue selector may depend on particular context where your method is used. For example you may return nil object from method in that case so you can easily see that something went wrong
If you don't know the exact type then using respondsToSelector: is definitely good style, because you risk an exception otherwise. And it's so important that there's a name for this technique: Duck Typing.
is there a class available to check if an array doesn't contain an object?
I want to do something like
if [(myarray doesntContain #"object")]
is this possible
For NSArray use -containsObject::
if (![myarray containsObject:someObject]) {
// ...
}
I wrote an NSArray category to achieve these negated checks via instance methods, as you had originally requested.. The first is for an array-type set group of objects, the latter for a singular check. These return YES in the case that the array instance DOES NOT contain the passed object or objects. Why? Exclamation marks confuse me.
NSArray+Additions.h
-(BOOL)doesNotContainObjects:(id<NSFastEnumeration>)enumerable;
-(BOOL)doesNotContainObject:(id)object;
NSArray+Additions.m
-(BOOL)doesNotContainObjects:(id<NSFastEnumeration>)enumerable {
for (id x in enumerable) {
if ([self containsObject:x]) return NO; // exists, abort!
}
return YES; // it ain't in there, return TRUE;
}
- (BOOL)doesNotContainObject:(id)object {
if ([self containsObject:object]) return NO; return YES;
}
If you're dealing with an NSArray, your first port of call should probably be the Apple documentation for NSArray, and probably the method containsObject, there's an example in this question.