Let's imagine I have Fraction class. So, the correct way to create instance of it is:
Fraction *myFraction;
or
myFraction = Fraction;
or
myFraction = [Fraction new];
or something else?
In the book i'm studying the correct one is first, but it looks unreasonable to me. Why do we have to create a pointer for it? Why don't we make the real instance?
That first expression means - give me a pointer to the new instance of Fraction class, doesn't it?
The first declares a variable named myFraction of type Fraction *, but doesn't create anything, nor initialize myFraction. The second isn't valid. The third creates a new Fraction and assigns it to a previously declared variable named myFraction. Often in Objective-C, you'll declare and initialize a variable in a single statement:
Fraction *myFraction = [[Fraction alloc] init];
As for whether to use new or alloc followed by init, it's largely a matter of taste.
Variables for storing objects are pointers in part because Objective-C inherited C's call-by-value semantics. When one variable is assigned to another (such as when passing it to a function), the value will be copied. At best, this is inefficient for immutable objects. At worst, it leads to incorrect behavior. Pointers are a way around call-by-value and the copy-on-assign semantics: the value of a variable with pointer type is just the pointer. It can be copied without touching the target object. The cost for this is you need some form of memory management.
It would be a good idea to read Kernihan and Ritchie's "The C Programming Language" so you can get an idea about how variables are declared.
There are two modes of allocation in C and Obj-C and C++: manual and automatic.
Integers and floats and characters and such are generally automatically declared. They are created when the declaration passes (i.e. int i), and deleted when the scope they were created in goes away, i.e. when you exit the block in which they were declared. They're called automatics. (it's also possible to declare them "static" but for the purposes of this discussion regarding allocation, these are the same)
Objects are too complicated to pass around to functions, as function parameters are "pass by value", meaning that the parameter gets a copy of the value being passed in, instead of the variable itself. It'd take a huge amount of time to copy a whole object all the time.
For this reason, you want to just tell the various functions where they can find the object. Instead of handing off a copy of the object, you hand off a copy of the address of the object. The address is stored in an automatic with a type of pointer. (This is really just an integer, but it's size is dictated by the hardware and OS, so it needs to be a special type.)
The declaration Fraction *myFraction; means "myFraction is a pointer, and just so you know, it's going to point to a Fraction later."
This will automatically allocate the pointer, but not the whole Fraction. For that to happen, you must call alloc and init.
The big reason why you have this two step process is that since we typically want objects to stick around for a while, we don't want the system automatically killing them at the end of a function. We need them to persist. We create places to hang the object in our functions, but those hangers go away when they aren't needed. We don't want them taking the object with them.
Ultimately, you might make declarations like this:
Fraction *myFraction = [[Fraction alloc] initWithNumerator: 2 Denominator: 3];
which says: "Make me a Fraction, and set it to be 2/3, and then put the address of that Fraction into 'myFraction'."
Why do we have to create a pointer for it? Why don't we make the real instance?
In Objective-C, every object is pointer type. So, you need to use either new or alloc/init.
Fraction *myFraction = [ Fraction new ] ;
or
Fraction *myFraction = [ [Fraction alloc] init ] ;
And myFraction needs to be released.
That first expression means - give me a pointer to the new instance of Fraction class, doesn't it?
No, you are just declaring a pointer of type Fraction. And the second statement is not even valid.
Related
I would like to ask a question, about an 'Object' and 'variable' in Objective-C. As we know, we can take many variables to store data of an object, but first we have to create an object with allocation. We have to give a memory location for our object in RAM using 'alloc' keyword. I think object can't store data because, an object is a noun, like a person. So, to store a data we need to use a variable. In C or C++ we use a variable of any primitive data type for data storage purpose. In Objective-C we use predefined classes like NSString.
So, can I use a variable with my NSString class type or I will use only an object with class type object.
There are two problems for me.
NSString *xyz = [[NSString alloc] init]; // can anyone tell me what should be 'xyz' in here a 'variable' or an 'object'?
if 'xyz' is an object in here. So, firstly I have to create it. But somewhere I have seen like....
NSString *xyz = #"welcome"; // according to me, here we are not allocating memory for 'xyz'. Why?
What is the difference between both statements? Can you please tell me?
Objects are instances of classes. (And that's all there is. Nothing else needs saying).
Variables are global and static variables (having unlimited life times) and automatic variables (variables existing while a function is executing, or while a new scope in a function is entered), and disappearing when the scope ends or the function returns.
In Objective-C, objects can never be variables. Pointers to objects can be variables, but objects can't. Values that are part of an object are often called "instance variables", but that is not the same as a variable.
In other languages, like C++, objects can be variables. The question "what is the difference between objects and variables" doesn't really make sense. It's like asking "what's the difference between alcohol and a cow". They are different categories of things.
#"MyString" is a shortcut; the compiler will create an object for you and give you a pointer to that object.
This question already has answers here:
Objective-C and Pointers
(3 answers)
why most of the objects we create in iphone are pointers
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am new to Objective-C and come from a Java background. I have just gone over casting in Objective-C but the book I am using failed to explain the use of the '*'/pointer when casting. Here is the example they gave me:
myFraction = (Fraction *) fraction;
Aren't pointers for specific objects so they have their own unique memory location? So then why must I use a pointer when simply referencing a class? In this case, Fraction.
Thanks I hope this makes sense and I know this is a simple question that I should know and understand but I could find nothing explaining this.
The * symbol has multiple meanings (beside multiplication :):
Dereference (follow) pointers. This code follows pointer stored in pointerToInt and then assigns a value to it.
(*pointerToInt) = 5;
Declares a pointer type. When you write int * it means “reference to an integer”.
int x = 5;
int * xPtr = &x
Now, objects are a kind of structures, but we only manipulate with them via pointers. Never directly. This basically means, that 99% of time when you see * (and it's not multiplication :) it is the second case: a part of type declaration:
NSString * = pointer to NSString structure (you can't use NSString alone)
Fraction * = pointer to Fraction structure and Fraction structure is described in Fraction class
So it's not “pointer to the Fraction class”, but rather “pointer to structure of Fraction class”.
I will go a little further and answer your future question about two **. You may see this usually with NSError arguments that are defined like methodWithError:(NSError **)errorPtr.
Short story: int is to int * as NSError * is to NSError **.
Long story: If we cannot manipulate with objects directly (without pointers to them), the single pointer becomes standard part of declaration. Now what if we want to make indirect access to the object? We use double pointer! First * is required for object, second is for indirection.
NSError *error = nil; // Empty.
NSError **errorPtr = &error; // Reference to our local `error` variable.
[data writeToURL:URL options:kNilOptions error:errorPtr];
// That method uses: (*errorPtr) = [NSError errorWith...];
NSLog(#"Error: %#", error); // Our local error is no longer empty.
I believe pointers are weird when you come from Java. They are a bit of legacy from C, but they are not used in any crazy way.
The * symbol is simply syntax that's used when referring to pointers.
Here, myFraction, and fraction are both variables that hold pointers (they aren't objects themselves – in fact you never have variables that hold Objective-C objects, objects must always be referred to with pointers).
The (Fraction*) syntax describes a cast to a pointer-to-a-Fraction of the expression on its right (in this case the fraction variable).
Remember that a pointer is just a variable that holds a memory location.
In Objective-C, when you have an object, what you really have is a pointer to an object, that is, a variable whose value is the memory address where the object really is.
Casting a pointer to a pointer of another type has no effect at runtime (at least for objects). In fact all your objects could be of type (void *). The casting helps the compiler to know what kind of object the pointer is pointing to, and generate errors or warnings.
If these two little paragraphs don't make much sense to you right now, consider reading some basic information or tutorials on pointers. Understanding pointers can be challenging for a beginner or from someone transitioning form the Java world.
...failed to explain the use of the '*'/pointer when casting...
Pointers have little to do with casting, other than being part of a type specifier. Consider:
Fraction is a type -- for the sake of argument, let's imagine that it's the name of a class, and that Fraction is a subclass of another class called Number.
Fraction * is a pointer to an instance of the Fraction class. In Objective-C, you always use pointers to refer to objects, so you'll see a lot of variables with types of the form ClassName *.
Casting is simply a matter of telling the compiler that it should treat a variable as a certain type. So, let's say you've got a variable number of type Number * and you know that the object it points to is actually a Fraction. However, you can't use any of the methods that are specific to Fraction because, as far as the compiler is concerned, number is just a Number *. You can use a type cast to tell the compiler: "I know what I'm doing, and number is definitely pointing to an instance of Fraction, so please treat number as a Fraction *." You do it like this:
Fraction *f = (Fraction *)number;
But again, the * doesn't have any special significance in the casting operation beyond the fact that Fraction * is the type to which you're casting number.
Model 1
NSString *name = (NSString *)[response valueForKey:#"name"];
[someObject doSomethingWith:name];
Model 2
[someObject doSomethingWith:((NSString *)[response valueForKey:#"name"])];
If i chose model 2 will that save a variable created on the stack Or still an implicit temp variable created behind he scene?
Ignoring loss of readability, is there any benefit in avoiding creating variable that will be used in only place. Instead passing it directly as in model 2?
The code generated by the compiler will be the same, however, there's no variable in the second case. A variable is a high-level programming concept, the resulting assembly code knows about registers and memory only. And in both cases, the return value of the innermost method call needs to be stored somewhere, so either a register or place on the stack will be used for that.
Also, id (what - [NSDictionary valueForKey:] returns) is generic and implicitly compatible with any object pointer type - please, don't cast its return value to NSString *.
This may seem like trivial question.
But why is that we have to use the asterisk symbol when declaring object variables
Like, we do
Car * mazda = [[Car alloc] init];
What's the importance of the asterisk, I mean the compiler already knows it's an object, I'm sure the compiler can be trained not to complain about it. But then again by omitting it, I get an error message "statically allocating instance of objective-c class NSObject" What purpose would that serve?
The asterix is a qualifier to the Car variable that you declaring. It means that you are declaring a pointer to a Car rather than declaring a Car itself. The return value of the init function (and the alloc function for that matter) is a pointer to a Car, not a Car itself, therefore this is correct.
With * you declare a pointer. That’s like in C, which is a subset of ObjC. Without the * the variable would be statically allocated which is not possible for ObjC objects (because the size of the object couldn’t be determined at compile time).
Statically allocated variables are used for primitive C types like int or double
int number = 42;
Objective-C requires that all objects are dynamically allocated (i.e. on the heap). The error you're getting indicates that you're trying to create a Car object on the stack. By declaring mazda to be a pointer to Car (Car*) rather than a Car, you satisfy that requirement.
This is effectively a dupe of Why [object doSomething] and not [*object doSomething]?, which has a ton of background information.
The asterix in variable declaration also means the value of the variable will not have a static allocated value. Its a pointer just like the others have said.
Hi I need to initialize an NSObject at a particular location that I specify(through a void* pointer, for example). For a little bit of context, I am writing a sqlite3 aggregate function. To keep temporary results from this function, I have to call a sqlite3_aggregate_context function, which allocates a block of memory for me. I want to store an NSDecimalNumber at this location.
So far I have tried two approaches:
1)allocWithZone, by doing:
void *location = sqlite3_aggregate_context(...); //returns a block of allocated memory of a certain size
NSDecimalNumber *num = [[NSDecimalNumber allocWithZone:NSZoneFromPointer(location)] initWithInt:0];
This does not work because NSZoneFromPointer returns nil. Docs say that the arguments to this function must be a previously allocated pointer, which it is. I dont know if this means allocated using NSZoneMalloc/Calloc.
2)
id location = sqlite3_aggregate_function(...);
location = [[NSDecimalNumber alloc] init];
but this causes some kind of infinite recursion when freeing the memory...not sure what the deal is. A screenshot here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3002073/Public%20Sync/sqlitefunctionissue.png
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
You can't really determine reliably where an object is going to be created in memory. The NSZoneFromPointer fails for you because the sqlite3 API is not using zones to allocate its resources.
If you want to be able to pass a specific location, you should do so using a pointer to the object (so you are storing a pointer to a pointer basically). You can then read this information from your aggregate function and update it accordingly. Just make sure that you don't simply let your object be freed at the end of the call without taking care to release it (or you'll have a leak).
So, for example, you could do something like:
NSDecimalNumber** numberLocation = sqlite3_aggregate_context(...);
*numberLocation = [[NSDecimalNumber alloc] initWithDouble:25.0];
You now have a reference to your object stored in your special memory area and can access it any time:
NSDecimalNumber* storedNumber = *numberLocation;
NSDecimalNumber* computedNumber = [[NSDecimalNumber alloc] initWithDouble:[storedNumber doubleValue] * someComputation];
[storedNumber autorelease];
*numberLocation = computedNumber;
On the other hand, I agree with Mark; maybe this immutable class isn't the best solution to your problem?
Your first version is simply not going to work. NSZoneFromPointer only works when passed a pointer allocated from a zone. It's used so you can allocate an object from the same zone as some other object.
The second version ought to work, though it's difficult to tell without more context. What are you passing to sqlite3_aggregate_context as the size of the memory to allocate? And how are you freeing that memory when you're done?
The second version doesn't work because the "id" type is actually a pointer, so you're pointing it at the memory returned by sqlite3_aggregate_context(), then pointing it at the memory returned by alloc/init. You really need to store a pointer-to-pointer to get that to work the way you want.
NSDecimalNumber is an immutable class, so calling -init on it (as opposed to -initWithDecimal:) is just going to get you some default value. What sort of code are you using to replace the NSNumber with new values as the function progresses?
More to the point, why use NSDecimalNumber at all, as opposed to a C integer, or double, or whatever?