This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why does fast enumeration not skip the NSNumbers when I specify NSStrings?
I noticed some unexpected behavior while using fast enumeration recently. In hindsight I was probably expecting fast enumeration to do more than it's intended for, so I'm looking for some clarification on how it's actually works.
Say I have a parent class Shape with 2 child classes, 3SidedShape and 4SidedShape. I have an array called myShapes, that contains objects from both the 3 and 4 sided classes.
If I wanted to search through the array myShapes, but I'm only concerned with 3 sides shapes what I was doing is:
for (3SidedShape *shape in myShapes)
My thought was that I would only be iterating over objects of class 3SidedShape, but that is not the case? I guess I'm casting all objects as 3SidedShape whether they like it or not. I'm evening returning the object after as a completely different class. Granted I'm not calling any methods that both classes don't have, but I didn't expect class siblings to just re-cast so easily without a hitch? Did I just get lucky here or can you really enumerate as any class you please regardless of relation? Can anyone explain what actually happens during enumeration?
The type specified in a for...in loop, aka fast enumeration, casts all the elements in the collection to the specified type. The reason why they are "re-cast so easily" is that casting does NOT turn one type of object into another (how would that work?). It's a hint to the compiler telling it to treat the object as if it were the other type, as if to say "don't worry, this object is of (insert type), so type check it as such." Sending the object a message it can't handle, but the type it was casted to can, will still crash the app. What you should do is this:
for (id shape in myShapes){
if ([shape isKindOfClass: [3SidedShape class]]){
//insert code here
}
}
That code assumes nothing of type, using introspection to only perform the code for objects who are of type 3SidedShape or a subclass of 3SidedShape. For exact checking (excluding subclasses) use isMemberOfClass:. Be wary of using isMemberOfClass: to test membership of a class in a class cluster (NSNumber), however, due to their more complex internal implementation.
Related
In C++ I would just compare the memory addresses of both objects. How would I do something similar in MATLAB?
Worst Case would be to have a static variable that iterates in each constructor and every object gets the current value as ID. But is there a better solution?
Thank you in advance.
#Edit:
I'd like to extend this question by assuming I have some given/not changeable classes inheriting handle and overloading eq. If I want to compare two objects of this class can I somehow cast both instances to handle and use the implementation of eq of the super class?
To test that two handle objects a and b refer to the same instance, you only need to use a == b. This is the same as eq(a, b). This is the defined behaviour of == for handle objects. I.e., for handle objects, == tests for equality of instances, not equality of the values within the instances. This is different from value objects.
For this to work you need to be using handle objects (classdef myObject < handle) because it doesn't make sense to test instances of value objects.
N.B. if you also need to get some kind of instance identifier for a handle object, then you need to do something like you describe using a persistent variable. Here's an example. In that case I would make that a base class for all your objects, so you wouldn't have to copy the same code into each class. But that's unnecessary if all you want to do is test two instances.
I already know the benefit of immutability over mutability in being able to reason about code and introducing less bugs, especially in multithreaded code. In creating structs, though, I cannot see any benefit over creating a completely immutable struct over a mutable one.
Let's have as an example of a struct that keeps some score:
struct ScoreKeeper {
var score: Int
}
In this structure I can change the value of score on an existing struct variable
var scoreKeeper = ScoreKeeper(score: 0)
scoreKeeper.score += 5
println(scoreKeeper.score)
// prints 5
The immutable version would look like this:
struct ScoreKeeper {
let score: Int
func incrementScoreBy(points: Int) -> ScoreKeeper {
return ScoreKeeper(score: self.score + points)
}
}
And its usage:
let scoreKeeper = ScoreKeeper(score: 0)
let newScoreKeeper = scoreKeeper.incrementScoreBy(5)
println(newScoreKeeper.score)
// prints 5
What I don't see is the benefit of the second approach over the first, since structs are value types. If I pass a struct around, it always gets copied. So it does not seem to matter to me if the structure has a mutable property, since other parts of the code would be working on a separate copy anyway, thus removing the problems of mutability.
I have seen some people using the second example, though, which requires more code for no apparent benefit. Is there some benefit I'm not seeing?
Different approaches will facilitate different kinds of changes to the code. An immutable structure is very similar to an immutable class object, but a mutable structure and a mutable class object are very different. Thus, code which uses an immutable structure can often be readily adapted if for some reason it becomes necessary to use a class object instead.
On the flip side, use of an immutable object will often make the code to replace a variable with a modified version more brittle in case additional properties are added to the type in question. For example, if a PhoneNumber type includes methods for AreaCode, LocalExchange, and LocalNumber and a constructor that takes those parameters, and then adds an "optional" fourth property for Extension, then code which is supposed to change the area codes of certain phone numbers by passing the new area code, LocalExchange, and LocalNumber, to the three-argument constructor will erase the Extension property of every phone number, while code which could write to AreaCode directly wouldn't have had that problem.
Your remark about copying value types is very good. Maybe this doesn't make much sense in particular language (swift) and particular compiler implementation (current version) but in general if the compiler knows for sure that the data structure is immutable, it could e.g. use reference instead of a copy behind the scenes to gain some performance improvement. This could not be done with mutable type for obvious reasons.
Even more generally speaking, limitation means information. If you limit your data structure somehow, you gain some extra knowledge about it. And extra knowledge means extra possibilities ;) Maybe the current compiler does not take advantage of them but this does not mean they are not here :)
Good analysis, especially pointing out that structs are passed by value and therefore will not be altered by other processes.
The only benefit I can see is a stylistic one by making the immutability of the element explicit.
It is more of a style to make value based types be treated on par with object based types in object oriented styles. It is more of a personal choice, and I don't see any big benefits in either of them.
In general terms, immutable objects are less costly to the system than mutable ones. Mutable objects need to have infrastructure for taking on new values, and the system has to allow for the fact that their values can change at any time.
Mutable objects are also a challenge in concurrent code because you have to guard against the value changing out from under you from another thread.
However, if you are constantly creating and destroying unique immutable objects, the overhead of creating new ones becomes costly quite quickly.
In the foundation classes, NSNumber is an immutable object. The system maintains a pool of NSNumber objects that you've used before, and under the covers, gives you back an existing number if you ask for one with the same value as one you created before.
That's about the only situation in which I could see value in using static structs - where they don't change very much and you have a fairly small pool of possible values. In that case you'd probably want to se up your class with a "factory method" that kept recently used structs around and reused them if you asked for a struct with the same value again.
Such a scheme could simplify concurrent code, as mentioned above. In that case you wouldn't have to guard against the values of your structs changing in another thread. If you were using such a struct, you could know that it would never change.
I am having trouble understanding with some of the code snippets about this part of the Java tutorial: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/interfaceAsType.html
public Object findLargest(Object object1, Object object2) {
Relatable obj1 = (Relatable)object1;
Relatable obj2 = (Relatable)object2;
if ((obj1).isLargerThan(obj2) > 0)
return object1;
else
return object2;
}
and:
public interface Relatable {
// this (object calling isLargerThan)
// and other must be instances of
// the same class returns 1, 0, -1
// if this is greater than,
// equal to, or less than other
public int isLargerThan(Relatable other);
}
In the first example, why am I downcasting Object types into Relatable types? What happens if the first method doesn't include the first two statements?
Let's say I wrote a Rectangle class that implements the Relatable interface and has the "findLargest" method. If I know that I'm comparing two Rectangle objects, why not just make the first method downcast the objects into Rectangles instead?
You cast the Objects into Relatable types because otherwise you cannot use the methods declared in the Relatable interface. Since Object does not have the isLargerThan method, you would get a compiler error without casting. Honestly, in my opinion the findLargest method as shown here was not very well designed; a better illustration of the purpose of Interfaces would be to ask for Relatable objects as the parameters like so:
public Object findLargest(Relatable object1, Relatable object2) {
//implementation not shown to save space
}
This way, the user must pass Relatable objects, but they can pass any object whose class implements Relatable (such as Rectangle)
"If I know that I'm comparing two Rectangle objects..."True, if you know that you are comparing two Rectangle objects, there is little use for an interface, but the purpose of interfaces is to allow you to create a generic "type" of object that can be used to define common features of several different classes.For example, what if you also had a Circle class and a Square class (both of which implemented Relatable)? In this case, you do not necessarily know the exact type of object you have, but you would know that it is Relatable, so it would be best to cast to type Relatable and use the isLargerThan method in a case like this.
Interfaces define a set of methods which every class which the interface implements has to implement. The downcast is necessary to get access to these methods.
You don't know if you are comparing rectangles with this interface. You could get any Relatble passed. This is one of the cases generics come in handy.
1.In the first example, why am I down casting Object types into Relatable types? What happens if the first method doesn't include the first two statements?
Answer
Every object has some basic functionality and you want a specific object write now. You are down casting your object into a "Relatable" so you can use the "isLargerThan" method(an object wont have it since it has only basic common stuff).
If you didn't down cast, you would not pass compilation.
2.Let's say I wrote a Rectangle class that implements the Relatable interface and has the "findLargest" method. If I know that I'm comparing two Rectangle objects, why not just make the first method downcast the objects into Rectangles instead?
Answer
Since you want to create something generic.
Lets say you have a Student and a Driver. Both of them are People. You can create an interface called IPeople and make both the Student and the driver implement it.
IPeople will have a method called "getAge()" that each of them will implement.
IPeople will have all the functionality that you need for "People". That's how you create cross object functionality under the "same hat".
Is the following format wrong if I add a pointer to an object of a class, as data attribute of class in Class diagram in UML?
could not find anything about using objects in class diagram, is
underlining the object correct within the class attributes?
I think you may be mis-understanding classes, objects and attributes. Apologies if it's me doing the mis-understanding. So. Here's the short answer:
it's absolutely fine and normal for the type of an attribute to be a Class. In other words, you're not restricted to using primitive types like int, long, char etc.
The consequence is, as you say, that the values of those attributes at run time will themselves be objects. Specifically, instances of the classes Ability, Move and See.
More specifically, each instance of Agent (i.e. each Agent object) will hold references - or more precisely pointers - to 3 other objects: one instance each of Ability, Move and See.
So, assuming that's right, what you have is correct - except for the underlining.
Underlining an attribute or operation says it sits at the class level - not the instance level. It's the equivalent of static in java. Think of declaring constants in class scope, or constructors.
If I understand your model that's not what you want. You want each instance of Agent to hold (a pointer to) its own instances of Ability, Move and See. You don't want all the Agent objects to share the same 3 instances. Assuming so, you don't need the underline.
Hope I understood and that helps.
I just attended a Scala-lecture at a summer school. The lecturer got the following question:
- "Is there any way for the compiler to tell if a class is immutable?"
The lecturer responded
- "No, there isn't. It would be very nice if it could."
I was surprised. Isnt't it just to check if the class contains any var-members?
What is immutable?
Checking to see if the object only contains val fields is an overapproximation of immutability - the object may very well contain vars, but never assign different values in them. Or the segments of the program assigning values to vars may be unreachable.
According to the terminology of Chris Okasaki, there are immutable data structures and functional data structures.
An immutable data structure (or a class) is a data structure which, once constructed in memory, never changes its components and values - an example of this is a Scala tuple.
However, if you define the immutability of an object as the immutability of itself and all the objects reachable through references from the object, then a tuple may not be immutable - it depends on what you later instantiate it with. Sometimes there is not enough information about the program available at compile time to decide if a given data structure is immutable in the sense of containing only vals. And the information is missing due to polymorphism, whether parametric, subtyping or ad-hoc (type classes).
This is the first problem with deciding immutability - lack of static information.
A functional data structure is a data structure on which you can do operations whose outputs depend solely on the inputs for a given state. An example of such a data structure is a search tree which caches the last item looked up by storing it in a mutable field. Even though every lookup will write the last item searched into the mutable field, so that if the item is looked up again the search doesn't have to be repeated, the outputs of the lookup operation for such a data structure always remain the same given that nobody inserts new items into it. Another example of a functional data structure are splay trees.
In a general imperative programming model, to check if an operation is pure, that is - do the outputs depend solely on inputs, is undecidable. Again, one could use a technique such as abstract interpretation to provide a conservative answer, but this is not an exact answer to the question of purity.
This is the second problem with deciding if something having vars is immutable or functional (observably immutable) - undecidability.
I think the problem is that you need to ensure that all your vals don’t have any var members either. And this you cannot. Consider
class Base
case class Immutable extends Base { val immutable: Int = 0 }
case class Mutable extends Base { var mutable: Int = _ }
case class Immutable_?(b: Base)
Even though Immutable_?(Immutable) is indeed immutable, Immutable_?(Mutable) is not.
If you save a mutable object in a val the object itself is still mutable. So you would have to check if each class you use in a val is immutable.
case class Mut(var mut:Int)
val m = Mut(1)
println(m.toString)
m.mut = 3
println(m.toString)
In addition to what others have said, take a look at effect systems and discussion about supporting one in Scala.
It is not quite as easy since you could have vals that are linked to other mutable classes or, even harder to detect, that calls methods in other classes or objects that are mutable.
Also, you could very well have a immutable class that in fact has vars (to be more efficient for example...).
I guess you could have something that checks if a class looks like it is immutable or not though, but it sounds like it could be pretty confusing.
You can have a class, which can be instantiated to an object, and this object can be mutable or immutable.
Example: A class may contain a List[_], which, at runtime, can be a List[Int] or a List[StringBuffer]. So two different objects of a class could be either mutable, or immutable.