In Objective C, is there a one-liner or something small to remove (shorten by one) and return the first element of an array, regardless of its index?
I don't know of a method that returns the item removed, but you can do this using a combination of NSArray#objectAtIndex:0 and NSMutableArray#removeObjectAtIndex:0. I suppose you could introduce a new method category on NSMutableArray that implements a shift method.
That would be a poor thing to do.
Objective-C on the iPhone can actually use most of the performance perks of C.
If you look at some of my other posts, you'll see I'm ADAMANTLY against premature optimization, but when you are coding at the C level, there are just some things you don't do unnecessarilly.
Move memory
Duplicate structures
Allocate sparsely populated memory blocks
Inner loops
... (There are lots more, but my C-life is rusty and, as I said, I'm anti-optimization)
What you probably want is a well-implemented queue. Something that pre-allocates a large enough circular memory structure and then has two pointers that track the first and last bytes.
I'd be pretty surprised to hear that Objective-C didn't have a queue data structure.
Also, don't strive for the one-liners. All the stuff about terse code is overrated. If it makes more sense to call a method, so be it.
It's certainly too late to assist the original poster, but if you have a plain NSArray and not an NSMutableArray, this works well:
id myData = myArray.firstObject;
myArray = [myArray subarrayWithRange:NSMakeRange(1, myArray.count - 1)];
Cocoa array objects (NSArray/NSMutableArray) do not provide a one-line equivalent — you would have to read the object first, then remove it. The fact that these classes provide the methods -lastObject and -removeLastObject but not -firstObject and -removeFirstObject should be a reminder that removing from the front of an array is usually an inefficient operation, since the contents must be shifted (copied) one position forward. This is particular true for arrays in C, which are intrinsically tied with pointers.
If you're working with anything but primitive data types and/or very small arrays, you might want to consider that the behavior of "shifting off" the first element is indicative of a queue data structure. For details on how you might create a queue for objects, see this SO question. Personally, my opinion for that question is that a real queue class provides the cleanest programming idiom. You can even define your own method (perhaps as a category on NSMutableArray or another class) that does provide a one-liner to do what you want:
#interface NSMutableArray (QueueOneLiner)
- (id) removeAndReturnFirstObject; // Verbose, but clearer than "shift"
#end
#implementation NSMutableArray (QueueOneLiner)
- (id) removeAndReturnFirstObject {
id object = [[self objectAtIndex:0] retain];
[self removeObjectAtIndex:0];
return [object autorelease];
}
#end
However, by that point the solution will likely cause more overhead than it's worth, depending on the importance you place on simplicity versus performance of the code that uses it.
If you have an array obj *arr where obj is a class/typename and arr is the array, you can just say arr+1 to get the array without the first element.
Use this code,
[arrayName removeObjectAtIndex:0];
this may help you
Related
This seems like a very strange interaction to me but at the same time it not only works but throws no warnings or errors in the process. Just looking to get some better understanding of blocks in general and why something like this could be right or wrong.
Is there any reason why something like this shouldn't be done?
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:^{NSLog(#"Block 1");}, ^{NSLog(#"Block 2");}, ^{NSLog(#"Block 3");}, nil];
for (id block in array) {
[block invoke];
}
Putting Blocks into NSArrays is fine; they're objects. In fact, they inherit from NSObject.
You do need to copy, them, however. Those Blocks are created on the stack and need to be moved to the heap in order to live past the end of the current method. If you're using ARC, this is easy:
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[^{NSLog(#"Block 1");} copy], ...
Under MRR, you need to balance that copy, so you have two unpleasant options: use temps, or enumerate the array right after creating it and send release to all its members.
Sending invoke, on the other hand, isn't completely kosher, because that's a private method. The only fully-API-compliant way to invoke a Block is with function-call syntax:
typedef GenericBlock dispatch_block_t;
for( GenericBlock block in array ){
block();
}
Sure, that's fine. Why wouldn't it be fine?
In languages like JavaScript this technique is commonplace when registering event handlers.
object.clickHandlers.push(function() { doStuff() });
object.clickHandlers.push(function() { doMoreStuff() });
I see no reason that similar techniques couldn't be used with ObjC blocks, as they are real objects.
The more interesting question to me though, is if this pattern is the best choice for whatever your goal is. Which you haven't really told us.
Blocks in Objective-C are "first-class citizen" objects. Whatever you can do to a regular object, be it passing as a parameter, storing in an array or a dictionary, and so on, you can do it to block objects as well.
For example, an array of block objects may be useful to encode a sequence of actions that is not known at compile time; a dictionary of block objects keyed by strings could be useful in implementing a scripting language, and so on.
The best way to call a block retrieved from a collection is casting it to its proper type, and using the regular block invocation syntax on it.
In a book, I see the code:
words = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:[masterWordList count]];
and let's say [masterWordList count] is 15. And then the code built the array up by using a loop for 10 times:
[words addObject:[masterWordList objectAtIndex:randomNum]];
I wonder why words has to be initWithCapacity... and to 15 slots? Can't it be 10 or 11 (if a nil is needed at the end... and also, won't addObject automatically grow the array size? I tried using init instead of initWithCapacity and the code worked too. So can the code in the book be simplified to just init?
initWithCapacity: simply gives the class initializer a "hint" as to the eventual size of the array. That way, it can allocate enough space in advance if you know you're going to need it. Using initWithCapacity: can theoretically provide for better performance because it may mean that the array doesn't have to reallocate memory (internally) as you add objects to it (I don't know if it actually does this in the current implementation, but it's possible). As you've guessed, it's only a hint and using initWithCapacity: is entirely optional. Just because you've given initWithCapacity: a certain size doesn't mean your array can't grow to hold more elements than that. Also, calling init instead will work just fine.
I wonder why words has to be initWithCapacity... and to 15 slots?
In fact, initWithCapacity: is generally not necessary at all. It may or may not reserve space in a useful way. My understanding is that it's something of a historic appendage.
Can't it be 10 or 11 (if a nil is needed at the end...)
It could be 10. As was mentioned on your other question, nil isn't part of the array. It's just a sentinel value for the creating method call itself -- it's not an object and doesn't become a member of the collection.
also, won't addObject: automatically grow the array size?
Yes it will; you can create a mutable array without specifying any starting size and it will grow as needed.
So can the code in the book be simplified just to init?
Yes.
I hardly ever see the second one used and I wonder why?
Neither would it break support for situations where an NSArray is expected (as it's a subclass).
Nor would it break encapsulation by revealing mutable internals.
Under the precondition that it's never a mutable ivar that's returned, (which should be common sense anyway)
I can right now only think of advantages of using the second.
It actually is mutable. And muting is safe here, so why prevent it?
No need to call [[[foo fooBar] mutableCopy] autorelease], which needlessly allocates additional memory and needlessly wastes time.
Here are the method variations:
- (NSArray *)fooBar {
NSMutableArray *fooArray = [NSMutableArray array];
//populate fooArray
return fooArray;
}
- (NSMutableArray *)fooBar {
NSMutableArray *fooArray = [NSMutableArray array];
//populate fooArray
return fooArray;
}
I'm asking as my project has a bunch of methods with the same pattern.
And in most of the times the returned array will be modified afterwards (merged, edited, etc).
So I think it should be totally fine to return NSMutableArrays, yet nobody seems to be doing it.
NSMutableArray, NSMutableSet, NSMutableDictionary… it's basically the same deal.
For an explanation of using mutable versus immutable, check out Apple's documentation on Object Mutability.
In general, it is best to return an immutable version, unless it is specifically your intent that the object returned always be an immutable object available for any client to change. You should create your interfaces based on the intent of the interface, not off the current implementation. It is possible that requirements will change and you will need to change the implementation of fooBar such that it does return an instance variable. By returning mutable arrays you ensure that you encapsulate not only your instance variables, but your current implementation.
So, you may have a valid place to return a mutable array (I don't know), but you see most code passing immutable arrays because it fully encapsulates their variables and their implementations.
I suppose the first variation was preferred because polymorphism was preferred.
In either case, both methods return an instance of NSMutableArray, the only difference being that the first one hides that fact from the caller. In other words, the first variation is not safer than the second. It's essentially using polymorphism to tell the caller that any type of NSArray might be returned. If you need that kind of flexibility in your code, it definitely has it's advantages. (e.g., if one day, for whatever reason, you need to return a custom NSArray subclass, your code won't break at that level).
However, you seem to prefer communicating intent to the caller - i.e. that you actually return mutable arrays - which is also OK. To make everyone happy (if there is such thing anyways...), I suggest renaming the 2nd method to:
- (NSMutableArray *)mutableFooBar {
NSMutableArray *fooArray = [NSMutableArray array];
//populate fooArray
return fooArray;
}
As a side note, I think that the following is a slightly more efficient way to convert an existing immutable array into a mutable one:
NSMutableArray *mutableArray = [NSMutableArray arrayWithArray:fooArray];
(correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption).
I hope this answers your question...
Having a method return a mutable instance like that looks suspicious.
As the caller you have to question the original method signature and wonder if it really is safe to mutate the returned value. After all the class may inadvertently be returning a pointer to internal state.
If profiling reveals that this copy is indeed expensive, I usually change the method signature to make it obvious that the mutability is intended. Perhaps with something like:
- (void)populateFooBars:(NSMutableArray *)array;
That way it is clear that the mutability of the result is intentional.
I have a NSSet containing many thousands of NSValue objects (wrapping CGPoints). I would like to very quickly find if a given CGPoint value exists in the NSSet. It seems to me that the member: method of an NSSet might do the job here, except that it checks for equality using isEqual:. NSValue objects use isEqualToValue:, and so when I execute the code:
[mySet member:valueToCheck];
it actually causes Xcode to crash.
1) Is there some way to use a custom equality check to make this work for NSValue objects?
2) Is this even the best approach (i.e. is member: quick enough in the first place)? The scenario is that I have a NSSet containing a large number of points representing pixels on the screen (iPad). Later on I need to bombard that set with many thousands of points per second to see if they exist in the set. My approach seems crude for achieving this. I thought about creating something like a huge 2-dimensional bit array, with each index representing a pixel on screen. Once I know the point I'm testing for, I can just jump straight to that point in the array and check for a 1 or 0... does this sound better or worse?
Thanks
Can you get this to a simple reproducible case? For example, I just tried:
NSValue *v = [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(1, 1)];
NSSet *s = [NSSet setWithObject:v];
NSLog(#"%#", [s member:[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(1, 1)]]);
But it works just fine.
edit
-isEqual: is not the problem:
NSValue *v1 = [NSValue valueWithPoint:NSMakePoint(1, 1)];
NSValue *v2 = [NSValue valueWithPoint:NSMakePoint(1, 1)];
NSLog(#"%d", [v1 isEqual:v2]); //logs "1"
-hash is not the problem:
NSLog(#"%d", ([v1 hash] == [v2 hash])); //logs "1"
They are different objects:
NSLog(#"%d", (v1 != v2)); //logs "1"
The problem is in your code. Try cleaning and rebuilding.
To answer no. 2:
I don't know how NSSet is implemented internally, but considering that you know you are storing points (with X and Y), I think you would be better by implementing your own partitioning algorithm. Personally I would choose my own implementation over NSSet if you say you have thousands of points.
Storing huge 2-dimensional arrays for each pixel, would probably be the fastest way, but it will kill you in terms of memory consumption. You need something fast, but also lightweight.
There are a lot of algorithms out there and you can find them by searching "spatial partitioning algorithms" on wikipedia or google. It also depends on your programming skills, and how much time you are willing to invest in this.
For example, a pretty simple one would be to implement a quad-tree, where you start by diving your screen(or area) in 4 equal parts. Then if and where is needed, you divide that specific cell also in 4 parts. And you do this until each cell contains a small enough number of points so that you can brute-force test all of them.
You can find a very good description on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadtree
Hope this helps,
[mySet member:valueToCheck] should not be crashing. NSValue's isEqual: works fine when I try it here, and in fact probably calls isEqualToValue: when given another NSValue to compare to. Is valueToCheck really an NSValue, or is it a CGPoint?
There is no way to override the default hash and comparison methods for NSSet. But NSSet is toll-free bridged with CFSetRef, and you can easily specify custom hashing and comparison methods there:
CFSetCallBacks callbacks = kCFTypeSetCallBacks;
callbacks.equal = customEqualFunction;
callbacks.hash = customHashFunction;
NSMutableSet *set = (NSMutableSet *)CFSetCreateMutable(NULL, 0, &callbacks);
The constraints on these functions are presumably the same as on NSObject's hash and isEqual: methods, anything that is equal must have the same hash. The C-style prototypes for customEqualFunction and customHashFunction are described here and here.
One solution would be to subclass NSSet and override member: to do your own comparison. Your own comparison could then simple call isEqualToValue:. Have a look at the subclassing notes in the NSSet documentation.
Another approach would be to add a category to NSValue that implements isEqual:. In this case I'd prefer subclassing because it's a more constrained solution.
It's not just a problem with -isEqual:, you may also have an issue with the -hash method. If you want to use an NSSet, you should probably create a custom class that wraps the CGPoint. -isEqual: is then trivial and -hash could be implemented by some method of combining the bits of both coordinates and then treating them as a NSUInteger.
You'll also want to implement the NSCopying protocol which is also trivial if your points are immutable (just retain and return self in -copyWithZone:).
This produces an immutable string object:
NSString* myStringA = #"A"; //CORRECTED FROM: NSMutableString* myStringA = #"A";
This produces a mutable string object:
NSMutableString* myStringB = [NSMutableString stringWithString:#"B"];
But both objects are reported as the same kind of object, "NSCFString":
NSLog(#"myStringA is type: %#, myStringB is type: %#",
[myStringA class], [myStringB class]);
So what is distinguishing these objects internally, and how do I test for that, so that I can easily determine if a mystery string variable is immutable or mutable before doing something evil to it?
The docs include a fairly long explanation on why Apple doesn't want you to do this and why they explicitly do not support it in Receiving Mutable Objects. The summary is:
So don’t make a decision on object
mutability based on what introspection
tells you about an object. Treat
objects as mutable or not based on
what you are handed at the API
boundaries (that is, based on the
return type). If you need to
unambiguously mark an object as
mutable or immutable when you pass it
to clients, pass that information as a
flag along with the object.
I find their NSView example the easiest to understand, and it illustrates a basic Cocoa problem. You have an NSMutableArray called "elements" that you want to expose as an array, but don't want callers to mess with. You have several options:
Expose your NSMutableArray as an NSArray.
Always make a non-mutable copy when requested
Store elements as an NSArray and create a new array every time it mutates.
I've done all of these at various points. #1 is by far the simplest and fastest solution. It's also dangerous, since the array might mutate behind the caller's back. But Apple indicates it's what they do in some cases (note the warning for -subviews in NSView). I can confirm that while #2 and #3 are much safer, they can create major performance problems, which is probably why Apple has chosen not to use them on oft-accessed members like -subviews.
The upshot of all of this is that if you use #1, then introspection will mislead you. You have an NSMutableArray cast as an NSArray, and introspection will indicate that it's mutable (introspection has no way to know otherwise). But you must not mutate it. Only the compile-time type check can tell you that, and so it's the only thing you can trust.
The fix for this would be some kind of fast copy-on-write immutable version of a mutable data structure. That way #2 could possibly be done with decent performance. I can imagine changes to the NSArray cluster that would allow this, but it doesn't exist in Cocoa today (and could impact NSArray performance in the normal case, making it a non-starter). Even if we had it, there's probably too much code out there that relies on the current behavior to ever allow mutability introspection to be trusted.
There's no (documented) way to determine if a string is mutable at runtime or not.
You would expect one of the following would work, but none of them work:
[[s class] isKindOfClass:[NSMutableString class]]; // always returns false
[s isMemberOfClass:[NSMutableString class]]; // always returns false
[s respondsToSelector:#selector(appendString)]; // always returns true
More info here, although it doesn't help you with the problem:
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/111173-mutability.html
If you want to check for debugging purposes the following code should work. Copy on immutable object is itself, while it's a true copy for mutable types, that's what the code is based on. Note that since it's calling copy it's slow, but should be fine for debugging. If you'd like to check for any other reasons than debugging see Rob answer (and forget about it).
BOOL isMutable(id object)
{
id copy = [object copy];
BOOL copyIsADifferentObject = (copy != object);
[copy release];
return copyIsADifferentObject;
}
Disclaimer: of course there is no guarantee that copy is equivalent with retain for immutable types. You can be sure that if isMutable returns NO then it's not mutable so the function should be probably named canBeMutable. In the real world however, it's a pretty safe assumption that immutable types (NSString,NSArray) will implement this optimization. There is a lot of code out including basic things like NSDictionary that expects fast copy from immutable types.