Question regarding programming structure of a recursive method - objective-c

I have this method and it's kind of really big so I can't include it in this post. It takes an array as parameter and tests its objects (NSStrings). Sometimes -but not always-, the method calls itself with an array containing one of those strings. If every test is passed, then the NSString is sent to another method which processes it. This all works fine but now I'm working on a different approach. I want to call the method and let it return an array of all NSStrings that passed the test successfully. But since the method calls itself I don't really know how to do this. Instead of processing it, I could add all successfully tested NSStrings to an array but that array would then needed to be accessible in all methods. What is recommended here? I would like to avoid public variables..
- (void)doStuff: (NSArray *)array { //A quick (very short) example of what I have now.
for (NSString *string in array) {
if ([string isEqualToString: #"test"])
[self doStuff: [NSArray arrayWithObject: #"test2"]];
else
[self processStuff: string];
}
}

You can add a mutable array as one of its parameters and add the result there:
- (void)doRecursiveWithData:(NSArray *)array storeResultsIn:(NSMutableArray *)results {
if ( shoudGoDeeper )
[self doRecursiveWithData:(your new array)];
else
[results addObject:(whatever you want to store)]; // or use another method to so so
}
I know your example is just that, an example, but maybe it's worth thinking about how you can go without the recursion - in many ways that's easily doable and often performs better.

Related

(NSString *) description -- not clear on something.... (Objective-C)

Let's say I have two array's. Let's imagine one is a NSMutableDictionary, the other is an NSMutableArray.
I also have this defined:
-(NSString *) description {
// return a human readable version of the array contents
return self.contents;
}
Then, for clarity sake, I want to print an array using something like this:
self.descriptionOfLastFlip = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"Array %#",[cardsFaceUp componentsJoinedByString:#", "]];
Then, of course, using that self.descriptionOfLastFlip to print something to the screen.
Ok, stupid question time... How would I define two separate description methods for dealing with the array and the dictionary in a different way? Obviously I'd probably want to access the info slightly differently, but, self.description, while it might work for the array, wouldn't work for the dictionary..
I'd love some insight on how to deal with creating a description method for multiple array's/dictionary's (or, how can you 'target' a description to one type of array, etc..?)
I tend to do things like this:
- (NSString *)description {
return [NSString stringWithFormat:#"MyClass { array = %#, dictionary = %# }", someArray, someDictionary];
}
Replace someArray and someDictionary with whatever properties or ivars you wish to include.

How to check assignment since addObject doesn't access setter?

I just noticed that calling addObject: on an NSMutableArray doesn't access that array's setter.
E.g., for NSMutableArray self.myArray, [self.myArray addObject:object] does not use [self setMyArray:array] to add the object.
Previously I have been using custom setters and getter to check assignment before assigning; e.g., if I wanted an array that only accepted objects of class MyClass, I would do the following:
- (void)setMyArray:(NSMutableArray *)myArray
{
for (id object in myArray)
{
if (![object isKindOfClass:[MyClass class]]) return;
}
_myArray = myArray;
}
- (NSMutableArray *)myArray
{
if (!_myArray) _myArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
_myArray = myArray;
}
How do I go about achieving this same functionality when changing the array via addObject:, removeObject:, and other similar functions that may circumvent the setter?
Generally this kind of problem is the reason why NSMutableArray is usually avoided in preference of NSArray.
This is the simple solution, use NSArray instead of NSMutableArray:
self.myArray = [self.myArray arrayByAddingObject:foo];
However, if the array is really big that will cause performance issues. Then you've got two options:
you can have your own addObjectToMyArray: method in your class and always use that
you can create an NSArrayController and use that to access your array. It will implement key value observing and bindings and all of that stuff.
NSMutableArray is designed to perform addObject: with as few CPU instructions as possible and therefore does not proved any way for external code to be notified that the object was added. You have to have some other class wrapped around it.
Do not try to subclass NSMutableArray, because it is a "class cluster" making subclasses extremely complicated.
If what you wish to do is ensure objects in the array are of a particular class then this answer to the question "NSMutableArray - force the array to hold specific object type only" provides code to do exactly that.
If you wish to do other checks on assignment then you can use the code in that answer as a starting point.

Is it best to return NSArray or void and update self property?

I am working on a delegate class that controls several views, and find myself switching between updating properties in the delegate and returning values from methods. What is the proper way to do this?
-(NSArray)blah{
return myarray;
}
or
-(void)blah{
[self myarray:value]
}
--------------- Clarification of question below
if I have a helper method that converts an NSArray into a NSDictionary
should I call my helper method and expect a return of NSDictionary, or should I update a variable in memory and return void.
There's a case for each approach, depending on what you are really doing. The two choices are:
It is truly a helper method, that has use in many places in your application.
It is specific to a single class and the dictionary is a member of that class.
OPTION 1) If it is truly a helper method, I believe that you should return the NSDictionary from the method. I'm assuming it is newly allocated within that method.
In other words, prefer:
+ (NSDictionary *) dictFromArray:(NSArray *);
If it has utility outside of a single class, you could put it in a sensible class that collects related utility methods.
The alternative approach of passing in an empty dictionary to be filled is practiced in C because it creates symmetry around allocating and freeing and makes it clear who owns the memory.
In Objective-C, reference counting takes care of that, so you can avoid the extra code of allocating empty objects just to call the method.
For example:
NSMutableDictionary *myDict = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
dictFromArray(myArray, myDict);
When it comes to knowing who owns the object, you should stick to Objective-C conventions, where:
+ (NSDictionary *) dictFromArray:(NSArray *)array
returns an autorelease object, so the caller knows they need to retain it if they want to hold a reference.
OPTION 2) If the functionality is specific to a single class and that class has the dictionary as a member, then I would pass in the array, update the dictionary member variable using the array contents, and return void.
Something like:
- (void) setBlahFromArray:(NSArray *)array
The question is confusing as stated. If they are properties then you have accessor methods that usually include something like:
-(void) setMyValue: (NSString*) inNewValue;
-(NSString*) myValue;
but it seems like you are probably asking something else since these can be dynamically synthesized for you by the compiler... So try rephrasing the question and we'll try again to help.

If I want to make a new instance of an object in a function whose pointer is passed by reference in it

- (void)createAString:(NSString **)str
{
*str = [NSString stringWithString:#"Hi all!"];
[*str autorelease]; // ???? is this right ?
}
How should I use release or autorelease ? I don't want to release outside of the function of course :)
...
NSString *createStr;
[self createAString:&createStr];
NSLog(#"%#", createStr);
You're correct that you'd generally want to return autoreleased (or the like) objects from out params when you use this form. Your assignment statement in the function that sets *str to a string:
*str = [NSString stringWithString:#"foo"];
is already doing the right thing, because that method returns an instance of NSString that the caller doesn't own. Just like you could return this string object from your function without any further memory management, you can set it as the outparam as you've done. Your second snippet showing the call site is fine.
This said, I'm worried about a few things in your code that you should be sure you understand:
The value of str inside the method is still a **, and sending that a message (as you've done for the speculative autorelease) is nonsense. Be sure you fully understand doubly indirected pointers before using them too liberally. :) If you need to send str a message after creating it, send it to *str, which is what contains the NSString *.
Setting an outparam like this when the function returns void is not idiomatic Cocoa. You would normally just return the NSString * directly. Outparams are rare in Cocoa. (Usually just NSErrors get this treatment from framework calls. Otherwise they conventionally use name like getString to differentiate them from normal get accessors which don't use the word "get".)
I hope -stringWithString was just an example. That method is almost never used in practice, since it's equivalent (in this case) to just using a #"string literal" (although that would muddy your example).
Instead of using a double pointer, would it not be more elegant to use an NSMutableString instead?
- (void)createAString:(NSMutableString *)str
{
[str setString:#"Hi all!"];
}
....
NSMutableString *createStr = [[NSMutableString alloc] init];
[self createAString: createStr];
NSLog(#"%#", createStr);
[createStr release];
Or, even better, just have the createAString method return an NSString.
- (NSString *)createAString
{
return #"Hi all!"; // this is autoreleased automatically
}
I wouldn't want to presume that your needs are this simple, though. =)

Cocoa Threadsafe Mutable Collection Access

I'm creating a KVC/KVO-compliant mutable array on one of my objects the recommended way:
#interface Factory {
NSMutableArray *widgets;
}
- (NSArray *)widgets;
- (void)insertObject:(id)obj inWidgetsAtIndex:(NSUInteger)idx;
- (void)removeObjectFromWidgetsAtIndex:(NSUInteger)idx;
#end
Clearly this is a tricky thread-safety issue. In the insert and remove methods I'm locking around array access to prevent concurrent modification, as recommended.
My question is, what is the proper way to implement the widgets accessor? Here's my implementation:
- (NSArray *)widgets {
[widgetLock lock];
NSArray *a = [[widgets copy] autorelease];
[widgetLock unlock];
return a;
}
Is it threadsafe?
Your widgets accessor should be fine, although you should be aware that none of the objects in that array are locked. So, you could run into problems trying to concurrently run code like
[[[myFactory widgets] objectAtIndex:7] setName:#"mildred"];
and
[myTextField setStringValue:[[[myFactory widgets] objectAtIndex:7] name]]; // mildred? or something else?
Since the objects in your array are not locked, you could run into race conditions or readers/writers-type problems. Isn't multithreading a joy?
On a different note, for KVC-compliance, I'd advise implementing objectInWidgetsAtIndex: and countOfWidgets instead of a widgets accessor. Remember, KVC models relationships, not array properties. So you would call something like [myFactory mutableArrayValueForKey:#"widgets"] to get an array representing the widgets property.
Rather than creating your own lock, you could also use the locking built into the language:
i.e
- (NSArray *)widgets {
#synchronized(widgets)
{
NSArray *a = [[widgets copy] autorelease];
return a;
}
}
and use similar locking in all other methods that access widgets. (The parameter widgets passed into #synchronized refers to the instance variable, not the method.)
alex's comment about access to contained objects still apply.
You will need locking on all reading and writing methods. If your insert and remove are also locking (like you said) then the accessor method should be fine like that.