I'm learning Objective C to program on iOS.
I know it has something to do with pointers, which I fail to understand.
I don't know what's the difference of creating a string (or any NSObject) like this:
NSString place = ...;
or
NSString *place = ...;
Thanks for the help!!
You never write NSString str. Period. All Obj-C objects are actually C pointers.
NSString is a class and as such instances of the class declared as NSString *str must always be declared as a pointer (since object instances can only be accessed via a pointer to the objects structure). Therefore this declaration is illegal: NSString str
Objective-C is, in some sense, more like a scripting language. Class definitions are maintained during runtime and can be modified. There is a C interface to the class definition system in objc.h. Even system classes can be modified, though it is not a good idea to do so. Because of this, all Objective-C objects must be created at runtime and accessed via pointers. To put it another way, there is no way for the compiler to know what an object should look like at compile time. This is also why "object may not respond to selector" is a warning, not an error and has the word "may" in it.
Related
I come from a C# background and I am learning Objective-C. I was wondering if I could get some clarification on syntax. Thanks in advance for your help.
What is the difference between the lines of code shown below? Given that I know for sure that the type in the "tempItem" dictionary is an (NSString *) type and newsItem.pictureUrl is also an (NSString *):
Scenario 1:
newsItem.pictureUrl = [tempItem objectForKey:#"picture"];
Scenario 2:
newsItem.pictureUrl = (NSString *)[tempItem objectForKey:#"picture"];
I know what you mean. I also started out preferring to cast, since it clearly shows what you are doing. But after a while, it gets terribly tedious and you learn to omit it.
The fact that there are no generics, and that the containers only store objects, is a bit of a bummer, especially if you come from a language with generics. It means you are constantly and explicitly converting between objects and simple types (e.g. between NSNumber and int) and that there is no way, except to query [object class], to ensure you only get an NSString or an exception you can handle.
But the cast will not make any difference. If the object returned is not an NSString, and you cast it to one, it will make no difference. The cast does no implicit type checking, nor a conversion. It merely reinterprets the return value.
Casting between object types can basically only affect two things:
What warnings the compiler emits (e.g. "the class for this variable doesn't appear to have the method you're trying to call")
What properties the object has and how they work (e.g. the equivalent getter for self.awesome might be [self awesome] or [self isAwesome])
It emphatically does not affect what kind of object you get. The static types at compile time are just hints for the compiler. If you cast an object to a type that it isn't, you're just lying to the compiler.
In that particular case, it doesn't have any effect at all. Some people do write code like that, but AFAIK that's just because they find it comforting to just act like they're using a statically typed language (even though Objective-C isn't).
There's no difference between the two lines of code; it's purely stylistic.
The method objectForKey: here returns an object of type id, which is a generic object pointer. In Objective-C, an id can be implicitly converted to any Objective-C object type without a cast. The following two lines are equivalent:
id someId = ...;
NSString *someString = someId; // #1
NSString *someString = (NSString *)someId; // #2
This is similar to how in C, a pointer of type void* can be implicitly converted to a pointer to any other type without a cast (that is also true of Objective-C, but void* pointers are discouraged in Objective-C; that is not true in C++).
As far as type safety goes, both are equivalently unsafe. If the runtime type of the object is in fact the type you're casting it to (whether the cast is explicit or implicit) or a subclass thereof, then everything will work as intended. If the runtime type is not what you're expecting, then most likely an NSException will be thrown with the common object does not response to selector error, due to calling a function that doesn't exist for that type. It's also possible you might crash with a segmentation fault due to accessing an ivar that doesn't exist or has an unexpected value (since the object really isn't that type).
If you're unsure of that object's runtime type, you should check its runtime type with the -class or -isKindOfClass: methods, and then only take action if it's a particular type. Prefer using-isKindOfClass:`, since that still works with subclasses, as opposed to comparing the class for exact equality with a particular class. For example:
id someId = ...;
if ([someId isKindOfClass:[NSString class])
{
// It's an NSString
NSString *someString = someId;
// Do stuff with someString...
}
The type of an Objective-C instance is really only useful for determining the appropriate amount of memory to allocate for creation of the instance, and for static analysis (code completion, compilation etc). At run time the instances are all represented by id's and the actual type of the object means much less. This dynamic behavior is by design, and allows a great amount of flexibility when designing ObjC applications.
You will see very little typecasting in the typical ObjC program.
Casting is only really necessary when you want to have the compiler understand the type for a call, so that it doesn't give "may not respond" warnings.
what can be possible reason for error "statically allocated the instance of objective c class uitableview" ?
Please read the ObjC Programming Guide;
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Introduction/introObjectiveC.html
Or you could just fix it via
MyClass *foo = nil;
instead of;
MyClass foo = nil;
notice the * character, its important. To find out why you really need to read the docs.
Guess it means that there is a variable that is globally scoped or class member and you declare that variable again in a lower scope.
So, I'm fairly certain that if I plan on manipulating strings often, such as with stringByAppendingString, I should be using variables of type NSMutableString.
But what if I'm doing something like this?
UILabel *someLabel = [[UILabel alloc] init];
[someLabel setText: [[someDictionary objectForKey:#"some_key"] stringByAppendingString:#"some other string"];
I read that if you use stringByAppendingString on an NSString, you end up with leaks because the pointer associated with the initial NSString moves around, pointing to the new string created by the append, whereas with NSMutableString, your pointer always points to that mutable string.
So my question is, what is implicitly happening when I call stringByAppendingString on something that is a string, but not explicitly an NSString or an NSMutableString? Such as, in my above case, the value of some key in a dictionary. Is doing this wrong, and should I be doing something like below?
[[[NSMutableString stringWithString:[someDictionary objectForKey:#"some_key"]] stringByAppendingString:#"some other string"]]
I read that if you use
stringByAppendingString on an
NSString, you end up with leaks
because the pointer associated with
the initial NSString moves around,
pointing to the new string created by
the append, whereas with
NSMutableString, your pointer always
points to that mutable string.
That sounds like the advice of someone who didn't quite have a grasp of what is going on with the memory management. Sure, [NSString stringByAppendingString] returns a new string. But what you do with that new string is up to you. You could certainly cause a memory leak by reassigning the result to a retained property in a careless fashion, like so:
myStringProperty = [myStringProperty stringByAppendingString:#" more bits"];
The correct form would be to use self, like so:
self.myStringProperty = [myStringProperty stringByAppendingString:#" more bits"];
Follow the cocoa memory guidelines.
As for dictionaries and other collection types: treat what comes out of the dictionary appropriately given the type you know it to be. If you pull an object out which is actually an NSString, but try to use it as a NSMutableString, your app will fall over (with 'selector not found' or similar). So in that case, you do need to make a new NSMutableString from the NSString.
Interesting note: Apple chose to make NSMutableString a subclass of NSString. Something about that seems unwise to me -- if something looks to be immutable, because it has type NSString, I want it to be immutable! (But in fact it could be NSMutableString.) Compare that to Java, which has a String class and a completely separate BufferedString class.
I've always been a fan of [NSString stringWithFormat#"%#%#", a, b]; because then you clearly get a new autoreleased string and can dispose of "a" and "b" correctly.
With [someDictionary objectForKey:#"some_key"], you will be getting the type of object that was put into that dictionary originally. So blindly calling stringByAppendingString without knowledge of what's in that dictionary seems like a bad idea.
-stringByAppendingString is going to return you a new NSString that is distinct from both strings involved. In other words:
NSString *string3 = [string1 stringByAppendingString:string2];
string3 is an entirely new string. string1 isn't changed at all, nothing happens to its memory location or contents. The person who told you that probably just misunderstood what was going on.
[mutableString1 appendString:string2];
In this case, mutableString1 still points at the same object, but the contents of that object have been altered to include string2.
One last thing to keep in mind is that if you are using mutable strings, you should be careful with sharing references to it. If you pass your mutable string to some function which keeps a pointer to that mutable string and then your code changes that mutable string at some point in the future, the other reference is pointing at exactly the same object which means the other code will see the change as well. If that's what you want, great, but if not you must be careful.
One way to help avoid this problem is to declare your #property statements for NSStrings to be "copy" instead of "retain". That will make a copy of your mutable string before setting it in your property and the -copy method implicitly gives you a NON-mutable version, so it'll create an NSString copy of your NSMutableString.
If you follow the rules for memory management, you will be fine using stringByAppendingString. In a nutshell:
if you own an object, you need to release or autorelease it at some point.
you own an object if you use an alloc, new, or copy method to create it, or if you retain it.
Make sure you read up on Apple's Memory Management Rules.
In the first code sample in your question, you aren't using alloc, new, copy or retain on any of the NSStrings involved, so you don't need to do anything to release it. If outside of the code that you've included in the sample you are using alloc, new, copy or retain on any NSStrings, you would need to ensure that they are released later.
Would someone be so kind as to confirm that I am understanding this correctly. My initial response to this was that the mutableArray when assigned to an immutableArray would become an immutableArray, however this is not the case.
Is this because the initial array is allocated as a mutableArray and the immutableArray is just assigned to point to the same object. The compiler gives a warning, but the the code executes just fine at runtime.
NSMutableArray *mArray = [NSMutableArray arrayWithObjects:#"Teddy", #"Dog", nil];
NSArray *iArray = mArray;
[iArray addObject:#"Snoss"]; // Normally this would crash NSArray
much appreciated
gary.
Don't confuse the physical object that you just created, with how you are effectivley casting it in your code.
In this case, you did physically create a NSMutableArray.
Then you effectivley cast it to an NSArray - which is totally valid - for example, there are many cases where a function might want an NSArray, and you can pass it an NSArray, or anything derived from it (like an NSMutableArray).
The problem is that you get a compiler warning because you are trying to call addObject on an object which the compiler thinks is just an NSArray because that's what it's physical type is.
This will actually work, because it actually is an NSMutableArray, and in runtime would respond to that selector.
It's bad coding practice to do it this way, because NSArray doesn't actualy respond to the addObject selector. For example, I could create a function, like:
-(void) addIt:(NSArray)myThing {
[myThing addObject:#"New String"];
}
The compiler would give you a warning saying the "NSArray" doesn't respond to the "addObject" selector. If you cast an NSMutableArray, and passed it to this function, it myThing, it would actually work.
It's bad practice though, because if you actually passed an NSArray it would crash.
Summary: Don't confuse what the object really is vs. what you are making the compiler interpret it as.
Yes, you are right. You should do
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithArray:mutableArray];
to ensure that nobody can change the array
Your iArray is actually referencing to NSMutableArray instance, that's why it is a NSMutableArray.
Obj-c doesn't have strict check on class types, all objects are of type 'id'.
You could write
NSNumber *iArray = mArray
Compiler will show a warning of wrong cast (not error). But it will work.
Don't mess with pointers, there is no object type transformations as you can expect in C++. (there are overloadable operators for casting object to another class).
Obj-c works with objects much like script/interpreted languages. Dynamic typing (objects only), reflection, dynamic change of methods of instance of classes etc - full flexibility. A perfect mix of speed of low-level C/C++ and flexibility of dynamism.
AFAIK, you are correct. NSMutableArray is a subclass of NSArray, so you can assign mArray to iArray here without a problem.
However, it isn't clean code and you should avoid it.
Quick question if I may: I am just curious about the following (see below) Xcode says "initializer element is not constant" why this does not work, I guess its the NSArray ...
static NSArray *stuffyNames = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:#"Ted",#"Dog",#"Snosa",nil];
and this does ...
static NSString *stuffyNames[3] = {#"Ted",#"Dog",#"Snosa"};
gary
Its because you are called a method (+ arrayWithObjects) that returns data - although the result is immutable, its actually dynamically generated data.
Static local variables are initialized at compile time so their initializer must also be known at compile time, which is obviously not true in you 1st example.
Static variables may be initialized in
their declarations; however, the
initializers must be constant
expressions, and initialization is
done only once at compile time when
memory is allocated for the static
variable.
and more on static variables.
Yes, it's the NSArray. Think about what happens at compile time.
In the second case it has all the information it needs. It has three NSString constants and a C-style array to put them in.
On your first line you have a call to a class method with four parameters, all of which happen to be constants. As far as the compiler is concerned, NSArray is no different from, say, UIApplication. It's a class with paramters. You and I know that it's an array but the implementation of that is in the Foundation library and not a core part of the language.