I've noticed that I cannot use the #property / #synthesize for member vars that are arrays in obj-c. For instance the member var int mVar[5] cannot use the #property/#synthesize.
However, I've noticed that I can set these vars simply by not using self.mVar[n] but instead using mVar[n].
Can someone explain why this works, if this is good or terrible practice, and what alternative I should use if it is not good practice?
Properties are syntactic sugar for set/get-style methods. Passing arrays in as parameters and out as return values via these methods is fraught with semantic and performance problems, so they probably just put them in the too-hard basket and deliberately excluded them.
As regular data members, arrays don't exhibit these difficulties because you are accessing them directly rather than copying them in and out via methods.
If you want to make the contents of an array accessible as a property (which you should only need to do if you want to make the contents public), you can expose them as:
#property (readonly) int *vars;
#property (readonly) int numVars;
Or you could do the Objective-C thing:
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSArray *vars;
But then you would have to create lots of NSNumber objects (ick).
Related
I have a collection of instances of different classes (9 to be precise), all with identical methods and properties, but each one performs a specific task.
I want to be able to switch between these different objects at any point. There maybe times when only a few of the objects get used, sometimes when they all get used, and other times when only one is used.
Ideally, I want a single property that could point to an instance of any of these objects. Ive tried doing something like this:
#property (nonatomic, strong) id * currentObj;
...
currentObj=[[ClassType3 alloc] init];
(ClassType3 is just one of the 9 different classes, in this example they go from ClassType1 to ClassType9)
But that doesn't work, I get these two warnings:
Property with 'retain (or strong)' attribute must be of object type.
Pointer to non-const type 'id' with no explicit ownership.
My question is, can something like this be achieved, or do I need to create an instance of each class just in case it needs to be used?
Gabriele gave already a correct answer. However,
if all the classes have identical methods and properties, you should consider to
make all classes inherit from a common superclass, and declare the property as
#property (nonatomic, strong) SuperClass * currentObj;
OR define a #protocol which comprises the common methods/properties, make all
classes conform to that protocol, and declare the property as
#property (nonatomic, strong) id <YourProtocol> currentObj;
The advantage in both cases is that the compiler can do more/better error checking when
the property is assigned or used.
id is already a pointer.
Change
#property (nonatomic, strong) id * currentObj;
to
#property (nonatomic, strong) id currentObj;
Moreover, please use capitalized names for classes.
I am using Key-Value Coding to simplify updating instances of a model class:
#interface NewsItem : NSObject
{
}
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *title;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *description;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *link;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *date;
using:
SEL selectorName = NSSelectorFromString(elementName);
if ([self.newsItem respondsToSelector:selectorName])
{
NSString *sanitisedElement = [self sanitiseElement:self.currentElementData];
[self.newsItem setValue:sanitisedElement forKey:elementName];
}
This works well but the 'description' property doesn't 'smell' right to me as it has overridden the base NSObject description getter (+ (NSString *)description). If the description getter is invoked now it will return irrelevant information when the caller would be expecting a description of the class.
Is it possible to safely proceed with Key-Value Coding for this class (given that I am bound to these property names by the external data source)? Or would it be wise to change the property names and manually check keys/set values instead?
You could override description in your class. This method is usually used only for debugging
and no caller can expect a specific output of that method.
But I see more general problems in your code. It is only checked that a method with the
given name exists. This does not imply that this method corresponds to a property, and even then, it does not imply that there is a setter for that property.
For example, every NSObject responds to the selector "init", so if the external
data source sends that key as "elementName", your code would immediately crash.
Therefore, an explicit list of "known keys" is needed. But then you can as well
use a mapping (NSDictionary) from external element names to internal properties
to avoid any conflicts.
I think that you are confusing methods with properties, and you are making things more complicated that how they are.
Is enough that, given an elementName that contains directly the setter name (i.e.: setDate), you invoke the selector passing that argument the object argument:
SEL selectorName = NSSelectorFromString(elementName); // elementName something like "setDate"
if ([self.newsItem respondsToSelector:selectorName])
{
[self.newsItem performSelector: selectorName withObject: sanitisedElement];
}
As for the description method, it has overridden NSObject's description, so you have two choices: name it in another way, or leave it like it is, and invoke it on super when you need the object description, with the help of Objective-C runtime:
struct objc_super superclass= { self.newItem, [self.newItem superclass] };
NSString* desc= objc_msgSendSuper(&superclass, #selector(description));
You can always override inherited methods.
By creating a property whose getter is the same as the signature of An inherited method, you are overriding it.
Is it bad? Yes if your implementation is not useful for debugging.
As best practice for KVC and KVO purposes it is a good idea to avoid potentially clashing with common inherited methods properties and ivars.
The common approach to this is to make longer property and method names and to make them more likely to be unique. One common way is by prefixing all yours with an abbreviation common to your class or framework or code.
Using something commonly used by Apple is likely to bite you in a rare and hard to debug way.
It's especially a bad idea to do this when core data is involved.
Don't be reluctant to make things longer. Code completion will type for you. Plus, a nice side effect of class specific prefixing is pseudo not only the pseudo namespace but that your class specific properties, variables, constants and methods will bubble up first in code completion.
I often have a hard time deciding if certain data should be exposed through a property or a method. You can say "use properties for object state", but that's not very satisfying. Take this example for instance:
- (NSString *)stringOne
{
return _stringOne;
}
- (NSString *)stringTwo
{
return _stringTwo;
}
- (NSString *)mainString
{
return [_stringOne length] > 0 ? _stringOne : _stringTwo;
}
It's clear that stringOne and stringTwo should be properties because they are clearly object state. It's not clear, however, if mainString should be a property. To the end user mainString acts like state. To your object, mainString is not state.
This example is contrived but hopefully you get the idea. Yes, properties are nothing more than a convenient way to create getters and setters but they also communicate something to the user. Does anyone have decent guidelines for deciding when to use a property vs a method.
Hiding the split between "true" state (string1 and string2 in your example) and "dynamic" state (mainString) is, I would say, exactly what properties are for.
The canonical example would probably be an object that represents a person, with given and family names as "state". A third piece of state, "full name" can be presented from those two pieces, but clients have absolutely no reason to know whether the full name is constructed on demand, or is created and stored when both of its pieces are set. It simply doesn't matter.
Properties are an interface -- what bits of data does this class provide to its clients (and what can the clients configure about the class)? The implementation of each property is encapsulated and does not affect its status as a property.
In ObjC, of course, we use methods to access properties. Other methods, however, represent actions that an object can take, possibly being passed some piece of data to operate on.
Another consideration to take into account : do you want to store the value of the property ? (via NSCoding or in Core Data for example)
I guess you NEED to create properties for things you need to "save" (in "encodeWithCoder" for instance. Deciding what you want to put in encodeWithCoder could help you decide which way you want to define things).
For things you don't need to save and can recalculate easily, you have the choice between a method and a readonly property (which is equivalent under the hood : a readonly property only creates a getter accessor method, and does not have an instance variable to back it). So that's more a question of style.
Speaking of style, if you use dot notation for properties only (as I do), you'd maybe wonder :
- do I want to access the full name as foo.fullName, and not make a difference with other properties like foo.firstName and foo.lastName ?
- or do you want to make a difference by accessing the full name with [foo fullName], showing to the world that this is calculated ?
I created an app for following stock quotes, and the model was inspired from an example in the Big Nerd Ranch book about Objective C (good read, by the way).
Here is how properties and methods are defined :
// properties
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *name;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *symbol;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *currency;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *market;
#property (nonatomic) int numberOfShares;
#property (nonatomic) double purchaseSharePrice;
#property (nonatomic) double currentSharePrice;
// Stock Calculation methods
- (double)costInLocalCurrency; // purchaseSharePrice * numberOfShares
- (double)valueInLocalCurrency; // currentSharePrice * numberOfShares
- (double)gainOrLossInLocalCurrency // valueInLocalCurrency - costInLocalCurrency
You can see that they are clearly distinguished.
The BNR does not use dot notation at all in their book, so it would all look the same : [foo currentSharePrice] or [foo valueInLocalCurrency], but as I use dot notation for properties, I would make a difference in style between foo.currentSharePrice and [foo valueInLocalCurrency].
Hope this is helpful.
By design, you should always respect the end user - if you think it's object state for the user of your class (which it apparently is), then go ahead and make a property out of it.
Well ! I got confused about the way of declaring variables & implementing its properties.
The .h File contents
#interface XYZAppDelegate : NSObject <UIApplicationDelegate> {
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UIWindow *window;
#property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet XYZViewController *viewController;
#end
The .m File Contents
#import "XYZAppDelegate.h"
#import "XYZViewController.h"
#implementation XYZAppDelegate
#synthesize window=_window;
#synthesize viewController=_viewController;
My questions/Queries are as follows.
Don't we require to declare variables if we put property ? ( Using property, we can indirectly declare variable - is it like that ? )
What are the additional features other than this ? ( In coding specific )
Why does everybody insist to use _ before each property accessor ? ( Other than security threats ? Has it become coding standard ? Whats the reason behind it? )
You do not have to declare the
variable. It is done automatically,
I believe by #synthesize. One
advantage to declaring it is that the
debugger will automatically list it.
Weigh this against the ugliness of
redundant definition.
Other features: read only properties,
assigned (unretained) values.
The underscore is a convention for
naming member variables that are
differently named than properties and
method variables. Apple's samples
sometimes use this convention and
sometimes do not. I view it as
usually unnecessarily verbose as a
programmer can easily tell the
difference between myVariable and
self.myVariable.
1) Don't we require to declare variables if we put property ? ( Using property, we can indirectly declare variable - is it like that ? )
No. You aren't required to declare variables for the corresponding properties. You are required to use the #synthesize propertyName command which tells the compiler to create those variables for you.
2) Why does everybody insist to use _ before each property accessor ? ( Other than security threats ? Has it become coding standard ? Whats the reason behind it? )
Most people (all?) have been stung by memory management nightmares. Some of these are caused by sloppy/lazy/zero-sleep coding. Using #synthesize propertyName = _propertyName allows the programmer to immediately know that the underscored variable is private to the class, and is unretained. It prevents issues where you specifically allocate or copy an object to store in the property, or accidentally assign an autoreleased object to the ivar.
Consider:
1) An autoreleased object being assigned to an unretained ivar.
#synthesize propertyName;
propertyName = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"I've just made %#", "a boo-boo."];
"propertyName" now references an object that will soon not exist, which will create EXEC_BAD_ACCESS errors down the road (as soon as it's referenced again).
2) A retained object being set to the retained property.
#synthesize propertyName;
self.propertyName = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"I just created %#", #"a leak"]
Now we've created an NSString object, and set it to the propertyName property, which itself is retaining the variable. Now the object is double retained and won't be properly released.
Both of these issues are easy to combat (even when tired, albeit less so) when you properly name your ivars with an underscore. It's not a fool-proof method, but it makes it considerably easier to manage the retain counts of objects in your head.
(1) No, not with the new 64-bit only features. The variables are declared for you, automatically.
(2) I don't know what you're asking here.
(3) It's just a convention, so that the variable name is different from the accessor name. Makes it clearer which you're dealing with.
I really need some clarification — I have a few questions and I'm all mixed up right now.
Here is a simple class interface:
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#interface Car : NSObject{
NSInteger carID;
NSString *carName;
}
#property (nonatomic, assign) NSInteger carID;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString * carName;
#end
Why is carID not declared as a pointer?
Why does it use "assign" for carID instead of "copy"?
Why even declare class members as pointers in the first place? (In my main program, my Car object will be used as a pointer.)
NSInteger is simply a typedef for a primitive type (int on 32-bit, long on 64-bit) — it is not an object, and can as such not be retained or copied.
Class members are always pointers; you never pass the "real" objects around; as that would be, at best, unmanageable.
Edit: To expand on the last paragraph: Objective-C class instances always exist on the heap, never on the stack; this is to facilitate things like reference counting and self-managed object life cycle.
This also means that it's very hard to accidentally copy an object; but on the flip side it can be somewhat easier to accidentally dispose of an object you still need. Still, the latter is more readily debugged (as it causes a nice, big crash (at best, anyway)) than the last (which at worst causes a slow leak).
The property for carID is not really correct. For types that are not pointers, the correct definition looks like:
#property (nonatomic) NSInteger carID;
It's always going to be copying a value anyway, but "copy" has a very different meaning in properties - for objects it's going to call [object copy] when that property is used to set a new value.
Or you could drop off the nonatomic, but then the property is more expensive to call (by some small amount). Just leave in the nonatomic unless you have a good reason not to.
Thanks guys!
So in Objective-C , you have int and Pointer Int.
How do you declare these in objective C
-int being a regular int.
-Pointer Int being an object representation of an integer. Since it is an object, it can also point to pointers*. Right?
And Pointer Int pointers can point to pointers of any type If I wanted to. Right?
It will cause a crash if it doesn't point to a Pointer int. But it will compile successfully, Right?
But in what scenarios would I prefer using a regular int to a Pointer Int?
I would like to add some clarification why you would want to use:
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString * carName;
instead of
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString * carName;
The copy keyword implies language semantics that you want to have a COPY of the NSString passed into your current object reference. So the pointer does not change (that is why you don't have to release the object ref).
The retain keyword makes it so that you get the pointer which will be retained because the pointer reference changes for this data member (and the current one will be released). Copying a NSString might not be a considerably heavy operation, so copying NSString is used often. You have to be careful what type of property you declare as copy. There might be a considerable amount of effort to produce a copy of types like Dictionaries etc (see shallow, deep copy etc).
Hope that helps!