I've been reading that when conforming to the NSCoding protocol and implementing the methods like -encodeWithCoder:, and encoding objects with i.e.
[coder encodeObject:self.someObject forKey:kSomeConstantToIdentifyFields];
this constant is used to keep track of that object. So later, with help of that constant, the appropriate "field" or whatever can be mapped to that object again (in this case an property).
But: Isn't this funny constant actually a random value when defined like this?
#define kSomeConstantToIdentifyFields #"fieldFooBar"
How does the system manage it to always assign the same value to that constant? Or did I get some stuff about this constants wrong? Is the value actually "fieldFooBar" and not some random number?
The key is a string - a name, if you will - that identifies a field in a dictionary. In this case, the dictionary is what will be written, or read from the archive that was created via the NSCoding protocol.
When you define the key like that, it's not necessarily constant, because it could be changed at some point (but only deliberately, not randomly by the system). As long as you don't change the #"fieldFooBar" string, it'll stay like that throughout the life of the program.
Keys are defined like this, not to be constant, but to be able to flag up compiler warnings and errors, such as spelling mistakes.
If you define the key once, and then refer to it by it's preprocessor symbol, if you mispell it, the compiler will throw an error saying it can't find that symbol. If you just used a string in it's place each time, then the compiler wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to warn you about it. Then you'd be on your own trying to figure out why your field isn't being decoded - because you're asking for the wrong key name.
Before your application compiles, a pre-compilation process occurs. The #define key value directive tells the pre-compiler "whenever you see key, replace it with value". It's not only that they're constants; it's as if you wrote #"fieldFooBar" all over your application yourself.
The reason not to do it yourself is to avoid mistakes, and I think Jasarien gave a great explanation for that in his answer.
Better way to define string constants is to use
static NSString *kSomeConstantToIdentifyFields = #"fieldFooBar";
That would same you some memory. Also, I suppose that isEqual: chects the object pointer, so having all constants point to one place is good.
Do constants always keep the same
value?
I believe that's why they're called constants. ;o)
Related
According to the Apple guideline , seems it is confusing, e.g. for method viewWithTag
In Java, I would have a method called
getViewByTag // Java version, equivalent to viewWithTag in Obj-C
But I also found there are some method like objectForKey, so why not just use objectWithKey instead?
getObjectByKey or just get // Java version, equivalent to objectForKey,
// but why not objectWithKey? Or not viewForKey above?
I actually think it is much simpler than what most answers think. I think it has less to do with complex programming language specifics, and has more to do with the uniqueness of the object in question.
When you say viewWithTag:, you are asking the UIView for any view that has that tag. There might be several. The UIView will return one of 'em.
However, objectForKey: (to me) sounds like there should be a single object (or nil) associated with that key. So, the key kinda exists and is bound (tightly coupled) to a single object.
EDIT:
There is an answer mentioning the existence of "by", which further implies how the convention has nothing to do with programming language complexities. It's just natural English.
NSString's stringByAppendingString:, for example, uses by, only because the function is written with a the verb appending. You can't say withAppending, that's bad English.
From my observation
While setting/getting the objects, you use WITH.
e.g. For setting of NSMutableArray object
- (id)initWithCapacity:(NSUInteger)numItems
While setting/getting the properties for objects, you use FOR.
e.g.For setting value for property of type NSMutableDictionary
- (void)setValue:(id)value forKey:(NSString *)key
Hope this helps in clearing your doubt
It seems like with is used for properties that directly belongs to an object. A UIView has a tag property so viewWithTag:14 could be rephrased as "Find the view whose tag property is 14".
When you put an object in a dictionary, associated to a key, this key is not necessarily part of the object itself. objectForKey:#"foo" is a way to say "Look for an object that's linked to the key "foo".
The Apple guidelines do not make any such claims as to when to use for or with. The point of the coding convention is to indicate what the types of the arguments may be and to write method signatures which are natural sounding.
The reason for the for or with in the method name is to identify the type or purpose of the first parameter to the method, which helps it read better.
Apple itself uses several conventions but that is the basic purpose, there is no concrete right or wrong just try to identify the first parameter of the method in the method name with either for or with.
And as for Apple conventions - get(whatever) is not even part of the actual conventions, so you could ask when do I use get or not.
Read this http://cocoadevcentral.com/articles/000082.php
also dont forget (by) NSURL urlByAppendingPathComponent etc - get a feel for it and you wont go wrong
You use "with" whenever the parameter is owned or to be owned, or will be a relatively permanent attribute by the object to the left of the "with" word.
initWithCapacity / arrayWithCapacity - the capacity will be an attribute of the container object being called and will be relatively permanent (until you add objects to it beyond the initial capacity)
viewWithTag – return a view "having" the specified "tag" attribute.
Whereas you use "for" to denote a looser association between the "desired" object and a "token" object that you use to get to it.
- objectForKey / attributeForValue – usually the "object" does not own the key.
- documentForWindow – the window is owned by the window controller and not the document. Furthermore there could be more than one window for each document.
But for looser associations of multiple
objects of the same type within a single method call, it's customary that you use something like:
doSomethingForFoo:withThisOtherFoo:havingYetAnotherFoo:
So the order for such complex call is:
for
with
having
I'm writing an objective-C game and I'm at the stage where i should start optimising some of my code in the game loops.
I have an extensive amount of class compare methods used,
if ([obj isMemberOfClass:[SomeClass class]])
etc.
I heard this sort of checking is quite expensive, because I choose only to have 1 array populated with multiple classes, I need some sort of class check.
I was thinking perhaps that adding a property to NSObject subclassing NSObject to contain a string property, that during initialisation i would make equal to the class name of that particular subclass. Then simply doing a
if ([obj.klass isEqualTo:#"SomeClass"])
Would this be beneficial?
I'm trying to keep as much dynamic coding out of the game loops as possible.
Thanks!
Short answer: no. String comparison is prohibitively more expensive compared to other methods of comparing (or: classifying, categorizing) objects.
Long answer: don't optimize what you haven't analyzed, measured and compared. What you really want to do before you start optimizing is to get a clear picture of how your app behaves and what its performance bottlenecks are. The change you're attempting is unlikely to lead to any noticeable change in performance, so I suggest to first find the real bottlenecks.
In this particular case, sending isEqual to an NSString is 4 times slower than isMemberOfClass if the test fails. And such conditional tests fail most of the time, which is why you should ignore the results of the test succeeding.
The successful string comparison is fast because it's a simple pointer comparison, if two strings are equal it is likely that they point to the same memory address. If they're not equal, then each character in the string will be compared for equality, probably by using the hash method.
Here are the results of the Object Comparison tests that I added to my performance test project. You can use that project to make further tests.
This is not really a direct answer to your question but is an answer in a broader sense.
In Objective-C the philosophy is more like that of Smalltalk in which you send the message and let the object decide what to do with it. If you find yourself having to do lots of tests to see what class an object is, you need to rethink your design.
For instance, if you have an array of objects and you want to convert each one to an integer to do some maths on it, you can do something like this:
for (id anObj in array)
{
int anInt = [anObj intValue];
// do something with anInt
}
It doesn't matter what the class of each anObj is, you can send -intValue to it. If your array is full of NSStrings and NSNumbers, for example, it doesn't matter, the code above will do what you expect.
Many classes do not define a method for the selector -intValue. For example, if you send that message to an instance of NSData it will respond by throwing an exception. There are a couple of ways to resolve this depending on circumstances.
ignore objects that don't respond to the selector by testing to see if the object knows about the selector
for (id anObj in array)
{
if ([anObject respondsToSelector: #selector(intValue)])
{
int anInt = [anObj intValue];
// do something with anInt
}
}
Define the selector for all classes you know will be put in the array. This is done by declaring a category. This way you can extend any Objective-C class without subclassing. For instance, you can define an intValue method for NSData that returns its length, or the sum of its bytes or some other appropriate value.
Formalise the requirement by declaring a protocol. You can then test for conformance to the protocol, or rely on compile time checks to make sure the objects you put in the array conform to the protocol.
There are lots of things you can do, but you need to get away a bit from the C++/Java model of class hierarchies. Objective-C is much more flexible in that respect.
One part of the program takes text from a uitextfield, copies it to a mutable string and then performs
sharedManager.ce_name=name.text
[sharedManager.ce_name replaceOccurrencesOfString:#" " withString:#"%20"
options:NSLiteralSearch range:NSMakeRange(0, [sharedManager.ce_name length])];
At this point it always gave me "attempt to mutate immutable object" - it was not random
The first time I got this error I changed it to
sharedManager.ce_name=(NSMutableString *)name.text
This STILL gave me the attempt to mutate immutable object error, but it would occur randomly - weird right?
I then changed it to
NSMutableString *mutable_name = [NSMutableString stringWithString:name.text];
sharedManager.ce_name=mutable_name;
It has yet to fail on me doing it this way but I am convinced that I have not found the solution.
my questions:
1) Could that fact that it was doing it randomly after the first fix indicate I have some deep seated memory management problem?
2) Why didn't the C-style cast fix it?
3) Will my current fix work?
Thanks for your time :)
The problem here is the way in which you're using casting. When you cast a pointer, it just starts treating the memory at that location as though it were a block of data representing that type.
So if I've got a pointer to a Car class: Car* mycar;, and I cast it to a Person object: (Person*)mycar;, the program will try to access the memory there as though it was pointing at a Person object. However, a car is not a person, except in an old TV sitcom, so when it tries to access members on this or call functions, it's going to try to go to a memory location that contains something other than what it's expecting, and undefined things happen (generally, crashing).
NSMutableString and NSString are incompatible in this regard, and so casting from one to the other will result in terrible times. Your fix ([NSMutableString stringWithString:]) is the correct solution.
If it was doing it randomly, it means that name.text was sometimes a mutable string and some times an immutable string.
Casting between objects like that doesn't change the class of the object. It won't make your immutable object mutable.
That "fix" is probably the best way to do it (at least from what I can see in the code you are showing)
Without seeing at least the declarations of the variables involved, it's difficult to say for certain, but your final solution, creating a new mutable string is likely the correct fix. As for your questions,
Not memory management per se, but it was probably overwriting something it shouldn't have somewhere.
Casts cannot change the fundamental type of an object. You had (presumably) an NSString and all the casting in the world cannot make it into an NSMutableString.
Like I said, probably, but we'd need to see more code to make sure. It's certainly a much better fix.
OK, I have a custom object (an NSManagedObject subclass, if it matters) and I want to pass a pointer to one of its iVars to a function that I've set up to modify such values. With a normal pointer you'd just prefix it with an ampersand (&) as in the classic NSError &error example, but that can't be done with dot notation. I can't just pass &object.iVar as I'd hoped. Can anyone suggest a simple and elegant way to obtain the pointer of iVar so that I can pass it? I am loath to pass the entire object for reasons of code structure and neatness.
-Ash
Argh, as is almost always the case, I ask a question after an hour of frustrating puzzling then ten minutes later answer it myself. I don't know, maybe asking questions is some kind of therapeutic trigger for answers... shame this isn't a psychology website.
Anyway, my solution was to add a new 'pseudo-getter' method to the object I'm trying to access the pointer from that looks a bit like this:
- (Pointer **)getIVarPointer
{
return &iVar;
}
It's a bit cludgy, but since I only have that one iVar whose pointer I need to obtain it's not too bad. On ther other hand if there is a simpler, more 'official' way of doing this, I'd love to know it!
The docs say:
The default implementation does not
copy attribute values. If the
attribute value may be mutable and
implements the NSCopying protocol (as
is the case with NSString, for
example), you can copy the value in a
custom accessor to help preserve
encapsulation (for example, in the
case where an instance of
NSMutableString is passed as a value).
So instead of getting into trouble and inconvenience with overwriting accessors in my NSManagedObject subclass, couldn't I simply do something like this?
myManagedObject.firstName = [[firstNameMutableStr copy] autorelease];
This would have the exact same effect, or not? The dynamic implementation would retain that anyways ... so.... why not the easy way?
It's an open question whether having to remember to copy the mutable string every where in code you set the attribute is "the easy way."
With a custom accessor, you just write the copy once then forget about. It copies automatically from that point on.
Just imagine that in thousands of lines of code you forgot to copy just once and developed a subtle bug because that one attribute of the managed object sporadically changed because some other totally unrelated code subsequently changed the mutable string you held only by reference.
I could tell you some stories of weekends lost to debugging because someone took "the easy way."