In the Pragmatic Core Data book, I came across this code snippet for an NSString setter:
- (void)setMyString:(NSString*)string;
{
#synchronized(self) {
if ([string isEqualToString:myString]) return;
[myString release];
myString = [string retain];
}
}
Is there any reason to use [string isEqualToString:myString] instead of string == myString here? Does it not mean that if the two strings have the same content, the result will be different than if they are actually the same object? Does this matter?
Thanks.
Notice that the variables you're comparing are pointers to NSStrings. Pointer comparison just checks if the pointers are referring to the same address. It doesn't know anything about the content at the end. Two string objects in two different places can have the same content. Thus you need isEqualToString:. In this case, I'm not sure either that it's a terribly important distinction to make though. It would make more sense to me if it were special-casing sending out change notifications based on whether the new string would actually be a change.
Incidentally, in an NSString setter, you almost always want copy rather than retain. I don't know the exact use case in this book, but if you just retain the string and it happens to be mutable, it can change behind your back and cause weird results. And if the string isn't mutable, copy is just an alias for retain.
Related
In MRC code returning NSArray element like this:
NSString* MyName()
{
NSArray *names = [NSArray arrayWithArray:[[NSHost currentHost] names]];
return [names objectAtIndex:0];
}
void BullCrap()
{
NSString *wouldItBeRetainedAutomatically = MyName();
}
wouldItBeRetainedAutomatically in BullCrap() scope? I am assuming I don't need to send wouldItBeRetainedAutomatically retain message to make sure it is still available after names in MyName() is deallocated? Or names wouldn't be deallocated until BullCrap() is done?
NOTE: I know I should use ARC, but i can't.
In order to be completely sure the answer to this question is correct it would be necessary to see where listOfNames comes from. This will tell us what memory management contract has been made between the system framework and your calling code.
With that said, it is probably safe to say that the system framework has autoreleased the NSArray that was returned and stored in listOfNames. So listOfNames will get released and disappear as soon as the autorelease pool is flushed. You create the name array using arrayWithArray which will also return an autoreleased instance.
However, you are specifically asking about the memory management "state" of the first element of listOfNames (or names) that is returned by the MyName function. This has almost certainly only been retained by the listOfNames array (and the names array). (Again the caveat above still stands). Given that listOfNames (and names) will get autoreleased shortly, the elements of the array will also get released.
Therefore, you should probably return the element from MyName with a call to autorelease and then retain wouldItBeRetainedAutomatically in BullCrap if you need it to stick around. There is nothing in the code that you've shown that would suggest it will be retained automatically for you.
On a side note, the names array that you create is unnecessary in the example you give. The same could be achieved as follows:
NSString* MyName()
{
//listOfNames is returned by SystemFramework API
return [listOfNames objectAtIndex:0];
}
Using the intermediate names array simply confuses the matter.
In this case it looks like you shouldn't do anything, simply because you say listOfNames is returned by a system API and this method is (in a very contrived way) adding it to and then removing it from an array which will be destroyed. So, the array temporarily retains the listOfNames but doesn't really change anything and the listOfNames is (depending on how it was really created) already auto released.
Obviously there's a massive caveat on where listOfNames actually comes from...
I have an NSTextField and get its contents like so
NSString *s = [textField stringValue]
Now I want to convert this NSString to a string that my platform-independent C code can handle. Thus I'm doing:
const char *cstr = [s cStringUsingEncoding:NSISOLatin1StringEncoding];
What I don't understand now is how long this "cstr" pointer stays valid. Apple docs for cStringUsingEncoding say:
The returned C string is guaranteed to be valid only until either the
receiver is freed, or until the current memory is emptied, whichever
occurs first. You should copy the C string or use
getCString:maxLength:encoding: if it needs to store the C string
beyond this time.
Two questions about this:
I suppose the aforementioned "receiver" is the NSString returned by the [textField stringValue]. Since I don't own this NSString how can I tell when this will be freed? Is it safe to assume that this NSString won't be freed before the NSTextField widget will be freed?
What does "until the current memory is emptied" mean precisely? I don't understand this at all.
Of course, I could just go ahead and make a copy but I'd like to understand how long the string pointer returned by cStringUsingEncoding is valid.
I know there are several similar questions here but none could really answer my question since in my case, the owner of the NSString is the NSTextField widget and I don't know when this widget will release the NSString or if it stays valid for the complete lifespan of the widget itself.
I suppose the aforementioned "receiver" is the NSString returned by the [textField stringValue]
yes, in this case the receiver is s
Since I don't own this NSString how can I tell when this will be freed?
you don't. you should retain s by storing it in an instance variable for as long as you need it
Is it safe to assume that this NSString won't be freed before the NSTextField widget will be freed?
no, because you don't know what or how the text field returned s to you
What does "until the current memory is emptied" mean precisely? I don't understand this at all.
good question. also, hard to tell, because you don't own the string or know about its underlying implementation. say it was a mutable string that was mutated and had to reallocate memory...
you can be pretty sure of your safety if you copy s, store the copy in an instance variable and then use the copy to get the C string (or just copy the C string).
Receiver for sure means the string s, and the danger to cstr is clear when s is freed. I think the phrase "or until current memory is emptied" is a documentation bug introduced by ARC. It can be read as "or until an ARC-implied release is executed".
See the doc quoted here in 2010 as evidence. I think the author, probably searching for 'autorelease pool' for places to update the docs, was grasping for a harmless, ARC-compatible synonym for "or until the current autorelease pool is emptied". I think it would have been better to just drop the disjunction.
Anyway, either take control of the NSString, or copy the cstring.
I would like some help better understanding the memory characteristics of Strings in Cocoa.
The app I am working with uses one view controller and n tool objects. The View controller lives for the life of the program but the tool objects are allocated and released.
Suppose I have a string toolName_ and in my implementation I configure the incoming tool object: if the object does not have a tool name, I want to set the toolName_ string to #"not set". If the tool has a name I want to set the string to the name of the tool.
I would like to know the proper way to store the incoming value into the toolName_ given that sometimes this will be an allocated object and sometimes this will be a constant string.
-(BOOL)setToolObject: ToolObject: obj{
ToolObject someObj = nil;
someObj = [[ToolObject alloc]initWithObject obj];
if(someObj != nil){
if(! [someObj.toolName isEqualToString: #""]){
self->toolName_ = Which method should I use given the above question?
The last instance may have been a constant string but may not have.
[self->toolName_ release] (can I send a release message to a constant
string without causing a problem?)
self->toolName = [[NSString alloc]initWithString:someObj.toolName];
OR
self->tool name = [NSString stringWithString: someObj.toolName];
This method is self releasing but I don't own it and I'm still not sure
what happens to the constant string if it existed. I think I read it's
not recommended to use this on member vars.
}else{
self->toolName_ = #"not set";
}
return YES;
}else{
return NO;
}
}
Advice appreciated.
I highly suggest to (possibly) use ARC, and if you can't use it (or maybe you just want to understand how memory management works?), to don't send retain and release messages from outside the class. Instead you should do this in the accessors.
So you should create a retain or copy property (usually with immutable strings is preferable to use copy, because they may be assigned to mutable strings, so making invalid the assumption that you are working with an immutable - thus thread safe - property).
So in your case I suggest a setter like this one:
- (void) setToolName: (NSString*) toolName
{
if(_toolName== toolName)
return;
[_toolName release];
_toolName= [toolName copy];
}
This way you're doing it fine, you shouldn't be concerned about what is the retain count of the setter argument. In case it is a string literal which has an unknown retain count, the object does not even respond to a release message, so it will stay alive for all the program (unlike it seems it is efficient because it avoids the overhead of creating an object at runtime). If you copy an immutable object (unless it something like a cached NSNumber, or a string literal), the code just does a simple assignment and the retain count gets increased.
So if you just follow the rule of "I retain (or copy) what I need to use, I release what I don't need to use anymore", you're doing it fine and you shouldn't worry about what happens in particular case like with string literals.
I want to compare the following simple assignments:
...
#property(nonatomic,retain) UITextField *textField;
...
self.textField.text = #"some string";
self.textField.text = [NSString stringWithString:#"some string"];
self.textField.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"some string"];
Where textField is an UITextField and the text property a NSString. Of course all of them work. I know the difference of the last two when using parameters. But lets say we are only interested in this usage.
QUESTIONS:
For doing this kind of assignment, why shouldn't I always use the first one?
Comparing the last two, is there any difference for the compile- and/or runtime of these two? And why should I use stringWithString: at all if not?
Always try to do what feels natural. If you're assigning a constant string then do that, i.e. the first option. #"..." strings are very efficient constants that do not need to be memory managed, so use them if it makes sense.
NSLog(#"%p", #"XX");
NSLog(#"%p", #"XX");
NSLog(#"%p", #"XX");
Results in:
0xa2424
0xa2424
0xa2424
i.e. They are all the same object in memory.
NSLog(#"%p", [NSString stringWithString:#"XX"]);
NSLog(#"%p", #"XX");
NSLog(#"%p", [NSString stringWithString:#"XX"]);
Also results in:
0xa2424
0xa2424
0xa2424
As you can see from this there is no difference between the two objects, thus using -stringWithString: is just an extra message to send. Having said that, the overhead is usually not big enough to make a difference, so it shouldn't be a big deal either way. Personally I'd go with method one as there is no benefit of using method two, it's just extra code.
However,
NSLog(#"%p", [NSString stringWithFormat:#"XX"]);
NSLog(#"%p", [NSString stringWithFormat:#"XX"]);
NSLog(#"%p", [NSString stringWithFormat:#"XX"]);
Results in:
0x7f86730
0xf8479b0
0x8a4cdb0
As you can see, a new string is created each time as the sting you provide is just a format string that is used to process the following substitution variables, as you have none avoid stringWithFormat: unless you need it.
(Obviously all addresses are examples...)
For doing this kind of assignment, why shouldn't I always use the first one?
For that kind of assignment you would always use the first one, and never the last two.
why should I use stringWithString: at all if not?
Your intuition is correct. In most cases -stringWithString: is of dubious value. It's primarily meant for use with NSMutableString, which is a subclass of NSString.
For example:
NSMutableString* myString = [NSMutableString stringWithString:#"Foo"];
[myString appendString:#"Bar"];
You can also use it if you want to convert an NSMutableString to NSString, or otherwise ensure that you're dealing with an NSString instance. For example:
- (void):setMyString:(NSString*)newString
{
[_myString release];
_myString = [[NSString stringWithString:newString] retain];
}
That's one way to ensure that the _myString ivar is pointing to an NSString instance and not an NSMutableString instance. And the newString instance is only copied if necessary.
However, most developers would just use _myString = [newString copy]; in that case.
For doing this kind of assignment, why shouldn't I always use the first one?
You should always use the first one in the situation you describe. The second and third cases potentially copy the constant string, but the text property of UITextField is specified as copying the provided string anyway. There's no sense in making a copy of a constant string just so UITextField's -setText: can copy that copy.
Comparing the last two, is there any difference for the compile-
and/or runtime of these two? And why should I use stringWithString: at
all if not?
My understanding is that -stringWithFormat: will always create a new string, while -stringWithString: might not (probably doesn't) for a constant string. hypercrypt's results above are pretty telling in this respect; if you wanted to explore that more, you might try the same test with a mutable string.
I don't think it matters if you use the first or the second for strings.
I usually use the second one however.
In the case of the second and third, if you have another variable you would like to include in your string then you use the stringWithFormat one. Otherwise, use stringWithString.
int number = 5;
NSString *str = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"Number is: %i", number];
// Str is "Number is: 5"
Situation where you would use stringWithString:
NSString *myName = [NSString stringWithString:#"FN LN"];
// myName is "FN LN"
You would use the latter when you have no other variables to include in the string.
Also, this question has been answered countless times elsewhere.
I need to use a bunch of string variables throughout my program. I reassign some of them quite often, while others are stuck with the same value during execution.
What's the best practice here?
In the first case, the variables should be NSMutableString and I should cast them to NSString (using the copy method) whenever they need to be arguments of functions that require NSString objects. Is that right?
When I reassign them to other constant values, I shouldn't have to dispose the previous content, right?
As for NSString objects, if I need to assign a new value to them, I guess I should deallocate them, allocate them again, and then assign the new value. Is that correct?
Unless you're actually modifying a string, you shouldn't use NSMutableString. You're reassigning the whole string to a new value, so stay with a regular NSString. Use the autoreleased versions, because that'll be more efficient than alloc/init/release all the time. You could also just reassign your strings to constants if you know what they'll be assigned to.
In the first case, the variables should be NSMutableString and I should cast them to NSString (using the copy method) whenever they need to be arguments of functions that require NSString objects. Is that right?
Well, you could do it that way, but it would be really inefficient. Remember inheritance—an NSMutableString is an NSString, just with some new stuff tacked on. A simple cast will do the trick:
NSString *string = (NSString *)aMutableString;
Even better though, you don't even have to do that. Because of inheritance, you can directly pass in a mutable string wherever a regular string is required, no casting required. That's the beauty of inheritance.
When I reassign them to other constant values, I shouldn't have to dispose the previous content, right
For neither mutable or immutable strings. Old values are simply overwritten in memory—nothing to dispose of there. As far as the memory management goes, it's really not efficient to literally be creating new strings all the time. Just reassign them. You will never need to alloc/init one string more than once, and that single init should be balanced by a single release.
Addendum: When Should You Use Mutable?
A mutable string should be used when you are physically changing the value of the existing string, without completely discarding the old value. Examples might include adding a character to the beginning or the end, or changing a character in the middle. With a mutable string, you can do this "in place"—you'll just modify the existing string. By contrast, an immutable string, once its value is set, cannot change that value. NSString has methods such as stringByAppendingString:, which does add a string to an existing one—but it returns a new string. Behind the scenes, NSString has copied your old string to a new (larger) memory location, added the argument, and returned the new string. That copying is a lot less efficient (relatively speaking, or if you have to do it a lot).
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from physically assigning one string to another. Old values will be overwritten. Most NSStrings, including the #"String Constants", are autoreleased. If you are creating a new string and you decide to alloc/init, you can then assign it to another value without consequence:
myString = anotherString;
myString = myTextField.text;
You can do this with both mutable and immutable strings. The main takeaway is that you should only use mutable when your changing the string itself. But you can change the variable with both mutable and immutable strings without compiler or runtime issues (short of memory management, but most of it is autoreleased anyway).
As for NSString objects, if I need to
assign a new value to them, I guess I
should deallocate them, allocate them
again, and then assign the new value.
Is that correct?
You don't deallocate NSString if you didn't allocated it before, like here:
NSString *string = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"Hello"];
You only need to deallocate it when you call alloc:
NSString *string = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:#"Hello"];
[string release];
The only difference between NSMutableString* and NSString* is that mutable string can be changed.
You don't have to cast anything, since NSMutableString is a subclass of NSString, nor take different memory measures ( so you are right * ).
If you need a modifiable version of a string you just do
NSMutableString* myMutableString = [NSMutableString stringWithString:myString];
You should not 'copy' anything.
Note that if you call :
NSString* myString = myMutableString;
myString is still a mutable String.
So if for any reason (security...) you relly need unmutable strings, you have to call
NSString* myString = [NSString stringWithString:myMutableString];
* you are right, but you could also call [replaceCharactersInRange:withString:] on the mutable string. if there is enough space from previous allocation, then it may be faster, since there is no destruction and new allocation to do.
( Added later : forgot the setString: method )