I have a controller which serves as a delegate to two scrollviews which are placed in view managed by aforementioned view controller.
To distinguish between two scroll views I'm trying to use switch statement (instead of simple pointer comparison with if statement). I have tagged both scroll views as 0 and 1 like this
NSUInteger const kFirstScrollView = 0;
NSUInteger const kSecondScrollView = 1;
When I try to use these constants in a switch statement, the compiler says that case statements are not constants.
switch (scrollView.tag) {
case kFirstScrollView: {
// do stuff
}
case kSecondScrollView: {
// do stuff
}
}
What am I doing wrong?
This can be solved through the use of an anonymous (though not necessarily so) enum type:
enum {
kFirstScrollView = 0,
kSecondScrollView = 1
};
switch (scrollView.tag) {
case kFirstScrollView: {
// do stuff
}
case kSecondScrollView: {
// do stuff
}
}
This will compile without errors.
This is because case statement requires constant expression. Now in C and thus in Obj-C making a variable const does not create a true constant. Thus you are getting this error. But if you use C++ or Obj-C++ then this will work.
Some more hint is available here and here.
Related
I'm working on a Swift 3 project that involves using some C APIs that I bridged from Objective-C.
Here is a sample snippet of the structure of the API:
typedef struct
{
StructMode mode;
StructLevel level;
} TargetStruct;
typedef struct
{
. . .
TargetStruct *targetStruct;
OtherStruct *otherStruct;
NonPointerStructA nonPointerStructA;
NonPointerStructB nonPointerStructB;
. . .
} InnerStruct;
typedef struct
{
InnerStruct innerStruct;
OtherStructB otherStructB;
} OuterStruct;
In my Swift code, my goal is to set a value of the TargetStruct from the OuterStruct, like the following:
// run function that returns an instance of TargetStruct
var targetStruct: TargetStruct = initializeTargetStruct()
// assign targetStruct to outerStruct
outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct = &targetStruct
However, I am getting the following error:
Cannot pass immutable value of TargetStruct as inout argument
If I set a value of a struct without the *, it will work fine:
var nonPointerStructA: NonPointerStructA = initializeNonPointerStructA()
outerStruct.innerStruct.nonPointerStructA = nonPointerStructA
I have tried setting the value of targetStruct like this, but for now I have no way to test it:
var targetStruct: TargetStruct = initializeTargetStruct()
outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct.initialize(from: &targetStruct, count: 0)
How to solve this problem? Thank you.
In Swift, prefix & is not an address-of operator. It is just needed to clarify that some expression is passed to an inout parameter. So, your first code is syntactically invalid in Swift.
Your C-structs are imported to Swift as follows:
struct TargetStruct {
var mode: StructMode
var level: StructLevel
//some auto generated initializers...
}
struct InnerStruct {
//...
var targetStruct: UnsafeMutablePointer<TargetStruct>!
var otherStruct: UnsafeMutablePointer<OtherStruct>!
var nonPointerStructA: NonPointerStructA
var nonPointerStructB: NonPointerStructB
//some auto generated initializers...
}
struct OuterStruct {
var innerStruct: InnerStruct
var otherStructB: OtherStructB
//some auto generated initializers...
}
(If something wrong, please tell me.)
As you see, targetStruct in your InnerStruct is a pointer, and initialize(from:count:) tries to write to the pointed region, but at the time you call initialize(from:count:), targetStruct holds its initial value nil, you know what happens when dereferencing null-pointer.
One way is to allocate a memory for the TargetStruct and use the pointer to the allocated region.
func allocateAndInitializeTargetStruct() -> UnsafeMutablePointer<TargetStruct> {
let targetStructRef = UnsafeMutablePointer<TargetStruct>.allocate(capacity: 1)
targetStructRef.initialize(to: initializeTargetStruct())
return targetStructRef
}
outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct = allocateAndInitializeTargetStruct()
This is a more general way than below, but you need to explicitly deinitialize and deallocate the allocated region. That's sort of hard to manage.
If you can confine the usage of the outerStruct in a single code-block, you can write something like this:
var targetStruct = initializeTargetStruct()
withUnsafeMutablePointer(to: &targetStruct) {targetStructPtr in
outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct = targetStructPtr
//Use `outerStruct` only inside this code-block
//...
}
In this case, the pointer held in outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct (== targetStructPtr) is only valid inside the closure and you cannot use it outside of it.
If any of the codes above does not fit for your use case, you may need to provide more context to find the best solution.
An example of nested use of withUnsafeMutablePointer(to:_:):
var targetStruct = initializeTargetStruct()
var otherStruct = initializeOtherStruct()
withUnsafeMutablePointer(to: &targetStruct) {targetStructPtr in
withUnsafeMutablePointer(to: &otherStruct) {otherStructPtr in
outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct = targetStructPtr
outerStruct.innerStruct.otherStruct = otherStructPtr
//Use `outerStruct` only inside this code-block
//...
}
}
When you need more pointers to set, this nesting would be a mess, but it's the current limitation of Swift.
An example of deinitialize and deallocate:
extension InnerStruct {
func freeMemberStructs() {
if let targetStructRef = targetStruct {
targetStructRef.deinitialize()
targetStructRef.deallocate(capacity: 1)
targetStruct = nil
}
if let otherStructRef = otherStruct {
otherStructRef.deinitialize()
otherStructRef.deallocate(capacity: 1)
otherStruct = nil
}
}
}
outerStruct.innerStruct.targetStruct = allocateAndInitializeTargetStruct()
outerStruct.innerStruct.otherStruct = allocateAndInitializeOtherStruct()
// Use `outerStruct`
//...
outerStruct.innerStruct.freeMemberStructs()
The code may not seem to be too complex (just a bunch of boilerplate codes), but it's hard to find when or where to do it. As your InnerStruct may be embedded in another struct which may need to be deinitilized and deallocated...
Hope you can find your best solution.
I want to dynamically add code to a block variable, or merge or concatenate a block with another block. Is this possible?
One way of doing it is creating a block that calls the block to be "expanded" before performing its own functions.
For example, consider the example below that adds logging functionality to an arbitrary block passed into it:
typedef void (^MyBlock)(int);
-(MyBlock) expand:(MyBlock)nested {
return ^(int x) {
nested(x);
NSLog("The value of x = %d", x);
};
}
The cumulative effect of calling the block produced by expand: is that of invoking the original block, followed by an operation from the expanded block. You can take it further, to create an appendBlock method:
-(MyBlock) appendBlock:(MyBlock)second toBlock:(MyBlock)first {
return ^(int x) {
first(x);
second(x);
};
}
Is this possible?
No, but you can create a collection of blocks and execute them sequentially.
Sure - just create a new block, which makes use of the original in whatever compositional way you'd like. If you've got block1 and block2, you might create:
someCodeBefore = ^myBlockType(block1) {
someCode()
thatIWantBefore();
block1();
}
someCodeAfter = ^myBlockType(block1) {
block1();
someCode()
thatIWantAfterBlock1();
}
composedBlocks = ^myBlockType(block1, block2) {
block1();
block2();
}
Just make sure you're copying the blocks correctly.
I have a member variable that tells units for a value I have measured like centimeters,kilometers,seconds,hours etc.
Now these are enums,
When I display a corresponding string, I have created a method that returns corresponding string for these enums.
Unlike Java, enums here cant have other properties associated with them.
So I have to explicitly do a if-else-if chain or a switch case to return the correct string.
I am new to Objective C. any good practice that I should be following in such scenarios ?
afaik Objective-C enums are just old-school C enums... so maybe you can use an integer value for them?
I guess if your enum values started at 0 and increased you could use some sort of array access:
const char *distanceUnitToString2(enum DistanceUnit unit)
{
const char *values[] = {
"cm",
"m",
"km"
};
// do some sanity checking here
// ...
return values[unit];
}
But this feels a little flaky to me. What if you have negative values, or you are using bitmask-style enum values like 1 << 8? You are going to end up using a very large array.
You also could use a switch and improve it a little with a macro. Something like this:
const char *distanceUnitToString(enum DistanceUnit unit)
{
#define CASE(UNIT, STRING) case (UNIT): return (STRING)
switch (unit) {
CASE(kCentimeters, "cm");
CASE(kMeters, "m");
CASE(kKiloMeters, "km");
default:
// should not get here
assert(0);
break;
}
#undef CASE
}
But you don't really save that much vs. not using the macro.
Martin James's comment is the right answer. And use a definition of the enum like:
enum units { cm = 0, m, km };
that way you can be sure that your enum translates to the correct index values.
The UIKeyboardAnimationCurveUserInfoKey has a UIViewAnimationCurve value. How do I convert it to the corresponding UIViewAnimationOptions value for use with the options argument of +[UIView animateWithDuration:delay:options:animations:completion:]?
// UIView.h
typedef enum {
UIViewAnimationCurveEaseInOut, // slow at beginning and end
UIViewAnimationCurveEaseIn, // slow at beginning
UIViewAnimationCurveEaseOut, // slow at end
UIViewAnimationCurveLinear
} UIViewAnimationCurve;
// ...
enum {
// ...
UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseInOut = 0 << 16, // default
UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseIn = 1 << 16,
UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseOut = 2 << 16,
UIViewAnimationOptionCurveLinear = 3 << 16,
// ...
};
typedef NSUInteger UIViewAnimationOptions;
Obviously, I could create a simple category method with a switch statement, like so:
// UIView+AnimationOptionsWithCurve.h
#interface UIView (AnimationOptionsWithCurve)
#end
// UIView+AnimationOptionsWithCurve.m
#implementation UIView (AnimationOptionsWithCurve)
+ (UIViewAnimationOptions)animationOptionsWithCurve:(UIViewAnimationCurve)curve {
switch (curve) {
case UIViewAnimationCurveEaseInOut:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseInOut;
case UIViewAnimationCurveEaseIn:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseIn;
case UIViewAnimationCurveEaseOut:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseOut;
case UIViewAnimationCurveLinear:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveLinear;
}
}
#end
But, is there an even easier/better way?
The category method you suggest is the “right” way to do it—you don’t necessarily have a guarantee of those constants keeping their value. From looking at how they’re defined, though, it seems you could just do
animationOption = animationCurve << 16;
...possibly with a cast to NSUInteger and then to UIViewAnimationOptions, if the compiler feels like complaining about that.
Arguably you can take your first solution and make it an inline function to save yourself the stack push. It's such a tight conditional (constant-bound, etc) that it should compile into a pretty tiny piece of assembly.
Edit:
Per #matt, here you go (Objective-C):
static inline UIViewAnimationOptions animationOptionsWithCurve(UIViewAnimationCurve curve)
{
switch (curve) {
case UIViewAnimationCurveEaseInOut:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseInOut;
case UIViewAnimationCurveEaseIn:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseIn;
case UIViewAnimationCurveEaseOut:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveEaseOut;
case UIViewAnimationCurveLinear:
return UIViewAnimationOptionCurveLinear;
}
}
Swift 3:
extension UIViewAnimationOptions {
init(curve: UIViewAnimationCurve) {
switch curve {
case .easeIn:
self = .curveEaseIn
case .easeOut:
self = .curveEaseOut
case .easeInOut:
self = .curveEaseInOut
case .linear:
self = .curveLinear
}
}
}
In Swift you can do
extension UIViewAnimationCurve {
func toOptions() -> UIViewAnimationOptions {
return UIViewAnimationOptions(rawValue: UInt(rawValue << 16))
}
}
An issue with the switch based solution is that it assumes no combination of options will be ever passed in. Practice shows though, that there may be situations where the assumption doesn't hold. One instance I found is (at least on iOS 7) when you obtain the keyboard animations to animate your content along with the appearance/disappearance of the keyboard.
If you listen to the keyboardWillShow: or keyboardWillHide: notifications, and then get the curve the keyboard announces it will use, e.g:
UIViewAnimationCurve curve = [userInfo[UIKeyboardAnimationCurveUserInfoKey] integerValue];
you're likely to obtain the value 7. If you pass that into the switch function/method, you won't get a correct translation of that value, resulting in incorrect animation behaviour.
Noah Witherspoon's answer will return the correct value. Combining the two solutions, you might write something like:
static inline UIViewAnimationOptions animationOptionsWithCurve(UIViewAnimationCurve curve)
{
UIViewAnimationOptions opt = (UIViewAnimationOptions)curve;
return opt << 16;
}
The caveat here, as noted by Noah also, is that if Apple ever changes the enumerations where the two types no longer correspond, then this function will break. The reason to use it anyway, is that the switch based option doesn't work in all situations you may encounter today, while this does.
iOS 10+
Swift 5
A Swift alternative to converting UIView.AnimationCurve to UIView.AnimationOptions, which may not even be possible, is to use UIViewPropertyAnimator (iOS 10+), which accepts UIView.AnimationCurve and is a more modern animator than UIView.animate.
Most likely you'll be working with UIResponder.keyboardAnimationCurveUserInfoKey, which returns an NSNumber. The documentation for this key is (Apple's own notation, not mine):
public class let keyboardAnimationCurveUserInfoKey: String // NSNumber of NSUInteger (UIViewAnimationCurve)
Using this approach, we can eliminate any guesswork:
if let kbTiming = notification.userInfo?[UIResponder.keyboardAnimationCurveUserInfoKey] as? NSNumber, // doc says to unwrap as NSNumber
let timing = UIView.AnimationCurve.RawValue(exactly: kbTiming), // takes an NSNumber
let curve = UIView.AnimationCurve(rawValue: timing) { // takes a raw value
let animator = UIViewPropertyAnimator(duration: duration, curve: curve) {
// add animations
}
animator.startAnimation()
}
I think I'm going blind, because I can't figure out where the syntax error is in this code:
if( cell == nil ) {
titledCell = [ [ [ TitledCell alloc ] initWithFrame:CGRectZero
reuseIdentifier:CellIdentifier ] autorelease
];
switch( cellNumber ) {
case 1:
NSString *viewDataKey = #"Name";
etc...
When I try to compile it, I'm getting an Error: syntax error before '*' token on the last line.
Sorry for such a basic question, but what am I missing?
I don't have a suitable Objective-C compiler on hand, but as long as the C constructs are identical:
switch { … } gives you one block-level scope, not one for each case. Declaring a variable anywhere other than the beginning of the scope is illegal, and inside a switch is especially dangerous because its initialization may be jumped over.
Do either of the following resolve the issue?
NSString *viewDataKey;
switch (cellNumber) {
case 1:
viewDataKey = #"Name";
…
}
switch (cellNumber) {
case 1: {
NSString *viewDataKey = #"Name";
…
}
…
}
You can't declare a variable at the beginning of a case statement. Make a test case that just consists of that and you'll get the same error.
It doesn't have to do with variables being declared in the middle of a block — even adopting a standard that allows that won't make GCC accept a declaration at the beginning of a case statement. It appears that GCC views the case label as part of the line and thus won't allow a declaration there.
A simple workaround is just to put a semicolon at the beginning of the case so the declaration is not at the start.
In C you only can declare variables at the begining of a block before any non-declare statements.
{
/* you can declare variables here */
/* block statements */
/* You can't declare variables here */
}
In C++ you can declare variables any where you need them.
You can create a variable within a switch statement but you will have to create it within a block so that the scope of that variable is defined.
Example:
switch(number){
case 1:
{
// Create object here
// object is defined only for the scope of this block
}
break;
case 2:
{
// etc.
}
break;
default:
break;
}
Might it not be valid to declare a variable within a switch block?
How to solve the warning:
1.Insert one ; in the first line of your case block
2.Put codes inside braces