I have a function that I want to operate on two different custom objects. My first thought was to accept the argument as an (id) and operate on the id object. I can't quite seem to figure out how to do that, however.
Both classes (say apples and oranges) have interface variables:
NSDecimalNumber *count;
I want to do something similar to this:
-(NSDecimalNumber*)addCount:(id)addObject{
return [count decimalNumberByAdding:addObject.count];
}
I can't seem to figure out the syntax to make that happen. Is this the proper approach, or would it be better to subclass (from say a fruit class) and operate on the parent class?
-(NSDecimalNumber*)addCount:(Fruit*)addFruit{
return [count decimalNumberByAdding:addFruit.count];
}
While you can send a message to any object (id) - property accessors require that the compiler be aware of the type you are dealing with - this is because property accessors are syntactic sugar around calling specific getter and setter methods.
You have a few of ways of working around this:
Instead of accessing the count property, call the corresponding [getCount] methods.
If the different classes have different versions of this method, you can use a runtime type check:
Provide a base class for both types so that you can pass in something more specific than (id).
Define and implement a Protocol that both objects implement that defines a count property (or method).
Example of a dynamic type check:
if( [object isKindOfClass:[Apple Class] )
// call one overload of getCount
else if( [object isKindOfClass:[Orange Class] )
// call another overload of getCount
Personally, I favor strong typing in my code because it makes it easier to understand the intent. It also allows the IDE to support your coding effort with intellisense, static analysis, and refactoring features. So, in your case, I would use either #3 or #4 as an approach - depending on whether inheritance is really appropriate for the problem.
You should try not to access instance variables from another class.
In Objective-C it's enough that the two objects respond to the same selector (say count), however that would give you a compiler warning.
There are two ways you can get rid of this warning: either by subclassing from a common Fruit class or by having your two classes conform to a protocol. I'd go with the protocol:
#protocol FruitProtocol
- (NSDecimalNumber *)count;
#end
#interface Orange : NSObject<FruitProtocol>
#end
#interface Apple : NSObject<FruitProtocol>
#end
Then your method can look like this:
-(NSDecimalNumber*)addCount:(id<FruitProtocol>)addFruit {
return [count decimalNumberByAdding:[addFruit count]];
}
Here you are saying that your addCount expects any object that conforms to the FruitProtocol protocol, and hence can respond to the count selector, so the compiler will accept it.
The fact that you are trying to access 'addFruit.count' is the problem. The dot syntax is only for properties declared with #property (or for structs). If you change it to
[addFruit count]
and add
-(NSDecimalNumber*)count
{
return [[count retain] autorelease];
}
to each class, then it would work. However, you will notice you'll get a warning saying 'id' may not respond to the 'count' message, and unless you can be absolutely sure the items sent to this method implement a 'count' method, this is a problematic approach.
I agree with pgb's approach. You should define a protocol, and declare both classes to implement that protocol. This eliminates the problem of not knowing whether the object will respond to 'count' or not, as you now have a 'contract' of sorts.
If you want to keep the dot syntax with a property, you can declare it in the protocol:
#protocol FruitProtocol
#property(readonly) NSDecimalNumber * count;
- (NSDecimalNumber *)count
#end
and then, your function would be:
-(NSDecimalNumber*)addCount:(id<FruitProtocol>)addObject{
return [count decimalNumberByAdding:addObject.count];
}
You're sending the message to count, what is count? id is a pointer to any type of object. If you expect the object to have a count property, then you should only be able to pass in an Array (or some other type restriction).
-(NSDecimalNumber*)addCount:(NSArray*) Object{
return [count decimalNumberByAdding: [Object count]];
}
As I understand it, id does not have any methods or variables associated with it because it is a generic pointer that does not refer to any specific class. This page has some good info on ids if you scroll down a bit.
anObject this will not have a count variable, which is why your first attempt won't work. Creating a base class and using that as a parameter to the method seems like the best idea to me.
Related
It seems that -valueForKey: and -valueForKeyPath: work with arbitrary methods, not only with properties. This seems very convenient:
I first stumbled upon it in Interface Builder, and then made some experiments:
// Thing.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface Thing : NSObject
- (BOOL) alwaysYES;
- (BOOL) alwaysNO;
#end
// Thing.m
#import "Thing.h"
#implementation Thing
- (BOOL) alwaysYES
{
return YES;
}
- (BOOL) alwaysNO
{
return NO;
}
#end
I can call these methods via -valueForKey: and -valueForKeyPath: despite the fact that they are normal methods and no properties:
Thing *aThing = [[Thing alloc] init];
id result;
result = [aThing valueForKey:#"alwaysYES"];
NSLog(#"result is: %#", result);
result = [aThing valueForKeyPath:#"alwaysNO"];
NSLog(#"result is: %#", result);
Compiles, runs and gives the correct results. Is this documented anywhere? Can I safely use it? How can i understand it?
Cocoa's key-value coding (KVC) system is older than support for explicit properties (declared with #property) in Objective-C, so KVC is defined in terms of methods, not properties.
“Default Search Pattern for valueForKey:” in the Key-Value Coding Programming Guide spells out how valueForKey: decides what to do. It starts by looking for (amongst other things) a method whose name is exactly the key you passed to valueForKey:. Here is the full search pattern, quoted from the documentation:
Searches the class of the receiver for an accessor method whose name matches the pattern get<Key>, <key>, or is<Key>, in that order. If such a method is found it is invoked. If the type of the method's result is an object pointer type the result is simply returned. If the type of the result is one of the scalar types supported by NSNumber conversion is done and an NSNumber is returned. Otherwise, conversion is done and an NSValue is returned. Results of arbitrary types are converted to NSValue objects, not just NSPoint, NSRange, NSRect, and NSSize types).
Otherwise (no simple accessor method is found), searches the class of the receiver for methods whose names match the patterns countOf<Key> and objectIn<Key>AtIndex: (corresponding to the primitive methods defined by the NSArray class) and <key>AtIndexes: (corresponding to the NSArray method objectsAtIndexes:).
If the countOf<Key> method and at least one of the other two possible methods are found, a collection proxy object that responds to all NSArray methods is returned. Each NSArray message sent to the collection proxy object will result in some combination of countOf<Key>, objectIn<Key>AtIndex:, and <key>AtIndexes: messages being sent to the original receiver of valueForKey:. If the class of the receiver also implements an optional method whose name matches the pattern get<Key>:range: that method will be used when appropriate for best performance.
Otherwise (no simple accessor method or set of array access methods is found), searches the class of the receiver for a threesome of methods whose names match the patterns countOf<Key>, enumeratorOf<Key>, and memberOf<Key>: (corresponding to the primitive methods defined by the NSSet class).
If all three methods are found, a collection proxy object that responds to all NSSet methods is returned. Each NSSet message sent to the collection proxy object will result in some combination of countOf<Key>, enumeratorOf<Key>, and memberOf<Key>: messages being sent to the original receiver of valueForKey:.
Otherwise (no simple accessor method or set of collection access methods is found), if the receiver's class method accessInstanceVariablesDirectly returns YES, the class of the receiver is searched for an instance variable whose name matches the pattern _<key>, _is<Key>, <key>, or is<Key>, in that order. If such an instance variable is found, the value of the instance variable in the receiver is returned. If the type of the result is one of the scalar types supported by NSNumber conversion is done and an NSNumber is returned. Otherwise, conversion is done and an NSValue is returned. Results of arbitrary types are converted to NSValue objects, not just NSPoint, NSRange, NSRect, and NSSize types.
If none of the above situations occurs, returns a result the default implementation invokes valueForUndefinedKey:.
This is parallel to the fact that you can call these methods using property syntax:
BOOL ok = aThing.alwaysYES
In that case and in your case, exactly the same thing happens: the first thing the runtime tries is to treat this as a getter method. What you've written is a getter method.
As for your question "can I safely use it", safely yes, but what you're doing is kind of silly, since you know (and have declared) that these methods exist. KVC is about probing to see whether methods exist. If you have a reason to specify one of these methods by string name, there are better ways to call it than using KVC.
Properties are nothing special at runtime; they generate a getter and setter (if not readonly) which conforms to KVC; for example:
#property NSString *aString;
will generate:
- (NSString)aString {
...
}
- (void)setAString(NSString *string) {
...
}
just as if you had declared those methods in the header (which itself is optional).
See the Key Value Coding Fundamentals documentation.
I understand that id is for any Object type even objects that do not inherit NSObject such as things from Cocoa. I have been told to almost always use id but what if I were making an API and had a method that I wanted to make it clear that it should only take a certain type of object such an object called Animal, would I still use
(id) animal
or would I do
(Animal) animal
Thanks so much!
id is a generic pointer to an object -- it's like void *, except that the pointer must point to an Objective-C object. So yes, you could use id in most situations where a more specific object pointer type would work, but it's usually better to use the more specific type:
- (id)animal; // OK if 'animal' could be any type of object
- (Animal*)animal; // much better if you know that 'animal' points to an object of type 'Animal'
You'll find plenty of examples if you look at any Cocoa or Cocoa Touch class. Let's look at a little bit of UIView:
- (BOOL)isDescendantOfView:(UIView *)view; // returns YES for self.
- (UIView *)viewWithTag:(NSInteger)tag; // recursive search. includes self
As you can see, the first method takes a UIView* as a parameter. If you try to pass something other than a pointer to an instance of UIView, the compiler will complain.
The second method returns a UIView*, and you can use the result directly as the receiver of other messages that UIView understands:
[[topView viewWithTag:someTag] removeFromSuperview];
Being specific about the types of parameters and return values lets the compiler help you make sure that you're sending appropriate messages to your objects and getting appropriate values back.
You can use any type starting from Animal and then up through inheritance chain to NSObject and id. Any would be valid. But in most cases you need to use just Animal because this is the very type you need to work with
Clang adds a keyword instancetype that, as far as I can see, replaces id as a return type in -alloc and init.
Is there a benefit to using instancetype instead of id?
Yes, there are benefits to using instancetype in all cases where it applies. I'll explain in more detail, but let me start with this bold statement: Use instancetype whenever it's appropriate, which is whenever a class returns an instance of that same class.
In fact, here's what Apple now says on the subject:
In your code, replace occurrences of id as a return value with instancetype where appropriate. This is typically the case for init methods and class factory methods. Even though the compiler automatically converts methods that begin with “alloc,” “init,” or “new” and have a return type of id to return instancetype, it doesn’t convert other methods. Objective-C convention is to write instancetype explicitly for all methods.
Emphasis mine. Source: Adopting Modern Objective-C
With that out of the way, let's move on and explain why it's a good idea.
First, some definitions:
#interface Foo:NSObject
- (id)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar; // initializer
+ (id)fooWithBar:(NSInteger)bar; // class factory
#end
For a class factory, you should always use instancetype. The compiler does not automatically convert id to instancetype. That id is a generic object. But if you make it an instancetype the compiler knows what type of object the method returns.
This is not an academic problem. For instance, [[NSFileHandle fileHandleWithStandardOutput] writeData:formattedData] will generate an error on Mac OS X (only) Multiple methods named 'writeData:' found with mismatched result, parameter type or attributes. The reason is that both NSFileHandle and NSURLHandle provide a writeData:. Since [NSFileHandle fileHandleWithStandardOutput] returns an id, the compiler is not certain what class writeData: is being called on.
You need to work around this, using either:
[(NSFileHandle *)[NSFileHandle fileHandleWithStandardOutput] writeData:formattedData];
or:
NSFileHandle *fileHandle = [NSFileHandle fileHandleWithStandardOutput];
[fileHandle writeData:formattedData];
Of course, the better solution is to declare fileHandleWithStandardOutput as returning an instancetype. Then the cast or assignment isn't necessary.
(Note that on iOS, this example won't produce an error as only NSFileHandle provides a writeData: there. Other examples exist, such as length, which returns a CGFloat from UILayoutSupport but a NSUInteger from NSString.)
Note: Since I wrote this, the macOS headers have been modified to return a NSFileHandle instead of an id.
For initializers, it's more complicated. When you type this:
- (id)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar
…the compiler will pretend you typed this instead:
- (instancetype)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar
This was necessary for ARC. This is described in Clang Language Extensions Related result types. This is why people will tell you it isn't necessary to use instancetype, though I contend you should. The rest of this answer deals with this.
There's three advantages:
Explicit. Your code is doing what it says, rather than something else.
Pattern. You're building good habits for times it does matter, which do exist.
Consistency. You've established some consistency to your code, which makes it more readable.
Explicit
It's true that there's no technical benefit to returning instancetype from an init. But this is because the compiler automatically converts the id to instancetype. You are relying on this quirk; while you're writing that the init returns an id, the compiler is interpreting it as if it returns an instancetype.
These are equivalent to the compiler:
- (id)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
- (instancetype)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
These are not equivalent to your eyes. At best, you will learn to ignore the difference and skim over it. This is not something you should learn to ignore.
Pattern
While there's no difference with init and other methods, there is a difference as soon as you define a class factory.
These two are not equivalent:
+ (id)fooWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
+ (instancetype)fooWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
You want the second form. If you are used to typing instancetype as the return type of a constructor, you'll get it right every time.
Consistency
Finally, imagine if you put it all together: you want an init function and also a class factory.
If you use id for init, you end up with code like this:
- (id)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
+ (instancetype)fooWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
But if you use instancetype, you get this:
- (instancetype)initWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
+ (instancetype)fooWithBar:(NSInteger)bar;
It's more consistent and more readable. They return the same thing, and now that's obvious.
Conclusion
Unless you're intentionally writing code for old compilers, you should use instancetype when appropriate.
You should hesitate before writing a message that returns id. Ask yourself: Is this returning an instance of this class? If so, it's an instancetype.
There are certainly cases where you need to return id, but you'll probably use instancetype much more frequently.
There definitely is a benefit. When you use 'id', you get essentially no type checking at all. With instancetype, the compiler and IDE know what type of thing is being returned, and can check your code better and autocomplete better.
Only use it where it makes sense of course (i.e. a method that is returning an instance of that class); id is still useful.
Above answers are more than enough to explain this question. I would just like to add an example for the readers to understand it in terms of coding.
ClassA
#interface ClassA : NSObject
- (id)methodA;
- (instancetype)methodB;
#end
Class B
#interface ClassB : NSObject
- (id)methodX;
#end
TestViewController.m
#import "ClassA.h"
#import "ClassB.h"
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[[[[ClassA alloc] init] methodA] methodX]; //This will NOT generate a compiler warning or error because the return type for methodA is id. Eventually this will generate exception at runtime
[[[[ClassA alloc] init] methodB] methodX]; //This will generate a compiler error saying "No visible #interface ClassA declares selector methodX" because the methodB returns instanceType i.e. the type of the receiver
}
You also can get detail at The Designated Initializer
**
INSTANCETYPE
**
This keyword can only be used for return type, that it matches with return type of receiver. init method always declared to return instancetype.
Why not make the return type Party for party instance, for example?
That would cause a problem if the Party class was ever subclassed. The subclass would inherit all of the methods from Party, including initializer and its return type. If an instance of the subclass was sent this initializer message, that would be return? Not a pointer to a Party instance, but a pointer to an instance of subclass. You might think that is No problem, I will override the initializer in the subclass to change the return type. But in Objective-C, you cannot have two methods with the same selector and different return types (or arguments). By specifying that an initialization method return "an instance of the receiving object," you would never have to worry what happens in this situation.
**
ID
**
Before the instancetype has been introduced in Objective-C, initializers return id (eye-dee). This type is defined as "a pointer to any object". (id is a lot like void * in C.) As of this writing, XCode class templates still use id as the return type of initializers added in boilerplate code.
Unlike instancetype, id can be used as more than just a return type. You can declare variables or method parameters of type id when you are unsure what type of object the variable will end up pointing to.
You can use id when using fast enumeration to iterate over an array of multiple or unknow types of objects. Note that because id is undefined as "a pointer to any object," you do not include an * when declaring a variable or object parameter of this type.
The special type instancetype indicates that the return type from the init method will be the same class as the type of object it is initializing (that is, the receiver of the init message). This is an aid for the compiler so that it can check your program and flag potential
type mismatches—it determines the class of the returned object based on context; that is, if you’re sending the init message to a newly alloc’ed Fraction object, the compiler will infer that the value returned from that init method (whose return type has been declared as type instancetype) will be a Fraction object. In the past the return type from an initialization method was declared as type id. This new type makes more sense when you consider subclassing, as the inherited initialization methods cannot explicitly define the type of object they will return.
Initializing Objects, Stephen G. Kochan, Programming in Objective-C, 6th Edition
is it possible to specify that a NSMutableArray can only contain a certain type of objects.
For example, if I want to store only this kind of objects :
#interface MyObject : NSObject {
UInt8 value;
}
In order to be able to use the instance variable like this :
- (void)myMethod:(NSMutableArray *)myArray{
for (id myObject in myArray){
[self otherMethod:myObject.value];
}
}
because I'm getting this error :
request for member 'value' in something not a structure or union
Thank you for your help
It sounds like you're coming from a Java/C# type background where limits can be imposed on collections.
Collections in Cocoa don't follow that pattern. There is no way to set a restriction on what type of objects can be inserted (unless you write a wrapper class that enforces this).
Objective-C, by design, follows the "if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it most probably is a duck" philosophy. That is to say that rather than checking whether an object is a particular type, you should be checking whether it can do what you want it to do regardless of its type.
You can do this using respondsToSelector:.
Finally, your problem isn't actually related to the fact that the array has no restrictions. Your object doesn't appear to declare the instance variable value as a property, or expose any accessor methods for it.
This is why you're seeing the error when you try myObject.value. That syntax in Objective-C is how you access properties.
The default scope for instance variables in Objective-C is #protected, which means anything outside your class can't access them without going through an accessor method of some kind.
You need to declare and define the methods - (UInt8)value and - (void)setValue:(UInt8)aValue and use them.
Alternatively, you could declare it as a property.
You are getting that error, because for as far as Objective-C is concerned, myObject is of the non-type id, which doesn't support the value property. To make Objective-C aware of the fact it's always dealing with a MyObject in this loop, you'll have to tell it the myObject object is an instance of MyObject.
for (MyObject *myObject in myArray) {
Also, you have to make sure the value ivar is accessible using dot-notation by implementing getter and setter methods for it. You can do this yourself by implementing -value and -setValue:, or you can use #property and #synthesize to let Objective-C do this.
Objective-C doesn't work like that. You need to use [myObject value] (which will work irrespective of the kind of object, as long as it responds to -[value]. If you only want one type of objects in it, insert only that type of objects.
You would have to write a wrapper-class for the NSMutableArray, see for example this question.
Subclass NSMutableArray and override methods that mediate the addition of objects to the array. You would check the object type in these overridden methods, only calling [super addObject:xyz] if the type is accepted.
maybe you can use protocol:
#protocol Person <NSObject>
#end
#interface Person : NSObject <Person>
#end
to use:
NSArray<Person>* personArray;
In Objective-C, what's the difference between declaring a variable id versus declaring it NSObject *?
With a variable typed id, you can send it any known message and the compiler will not complain. With a variable typed NSObject *, you can only send it messages declared by NSObject (not methods of any subclass) or else it will generate a warning. In general, id is what you want.
Further explanation: All objects are essentially of type id. The point of declaring a static type is to tell the compiler, "Assume that this object is a member of this class." So if you send it a message that the class doesn't declare, the compiler can tell you, "Wait, that object isn't supposed to get that message!" Also, if two classes have methods with the same name but different signatures (that is, argument or return types), it can guess which method you mean by the class you've declared for the variable. If it's declared as id, the compiler will just throw its hands up and tell you, "OK, I don't have enough information here. I'm picking a method signature at random." (This generally won't be helped by declaring NSObject*, though. Usually the conflict is between two more specific classes.)
id means "an object", NSObject * means "an instance of NSObject or one of its subclasses". There are objects in Objective-C which are not NSObjects (the ones you'll meet in Cocoa at the moment are NSProxy, Protocol and Class). If some code expects an object of a particular class, declaring that helps the compiler check that you're using it properly. If you really can take "any object" - for instance you are declaring a delegate and will test all method sends with respondsToSelector: calls - you can use an id.
Another way to declare an object variable is like "id <NSObject>", which means "any object which implements the NSObject protocol.
From my limited understanding of Objective-C, not all objects are derived from NSObject (unlike Java where all objects derive from Object). You can theoretically have other root objects. id could apply to any of those non-NSObject derived objects.
I would like to add another difference. When you add a protocol to id, it does not longer mean that it will be of type NSObject *, it just means that it will be any class that confirms to that protocol.
So, for example, this code will not throw any error, since NSObject's category NSDelayedPerforming has that method:
id testId;
[testId performSelector:#selector(isKindOfClass:) withObject:[NSObject class] afterDelay:.5];
However, this code will show the error No known instance method for selector "performSelector:withObject:afterDelay:":
id<NSMutableCopying> testId;
[testId performSelector:#selector(isKindOfClass:) withObject:[NSObject class] afterDelay:.5];