Can someone please explain to me (in simple terms) why an instancetype is used in Objective-C?
- (instancetype) init {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// Custom initialization
}
return self;
}
It's to increase type safety.
Back in the old days, initialisers just returned an object of type id (any object).
With normal initialisers (those that begin with "init", "alloc" or "new"), this wasn't usually a problem. The compiler would automatically infer the type that it returned and therefore restrict any method calls on the object to the instance methods of that class.
However, this was a problem with static convenience initialisers or "factory methods" that didn't necessarily follow the same naming convention - therefore it was unable to apply the same type safety.
This means that with a class like this:
#interface Foo : NSObject
+(id) aConvenienceInit;
#end
The compiler would accept code like this:
NSArray* subviews = [Foo aConvenienceInit].subviews;
Why? Because the returned object could be any object, so if you try and access a UIView property - there's no type safety to stop you.
However, now with instancetype, the result you get back is of type of your given instance. Now with this code:
#interface Foo : NSObject
+(instancetype) aConvenienceInit;
#end
...
NSArray* subviews = [Foo aConvenienceInit].subviews;
You'll get a compiler warning saying that the property subviews is not a member of Foo*:
Although it's worth noting that the compiler will automatically convert the return type from id to instancetype if your method begins with "alloc", "init" or "new" - but nonetheless using instancetype wherever you can is a good habit to get into.
See the Apple docs on instancetype for more info.
Imagine two classes:
#interface A : NSObject
- (instancetype)init;
#end
#interface B : A
#end
The init method from A is inherited to B. However, in both classes the method has a different return type. In A the return type is A and in B the return type is B.
There is no other way to declare the return type for initializers correctly. Note that most programming languages with classes don't even have return types for constructors, therefore they completely avoid the issue.
This is the reason why Obj-C needs instancetype but of course it can be used outside initializers, too.
It is important to use instancetype instead of id in Objective-C if you are also using this code in Swift. Consider the following class declaration:
#interface MyObject : NSObject
+ (id)createMyObject;
- (void)f;
#end
If you want to create a MyObject instance in Swift 5.3 with createMyObject and then call f for this object, you will have to do the following:
let a = MyObject.createMyObject()
(a as? MyObject)?.f()
Now replace id with instancetype in MyObject to have the following Swift code:
let a = MyObject.create()
a?.f()
As you can see now, you can use MyObject.create() instead of MyObject.createMyObject(). And you don't need to use (a as? MyObject) since a is defined as MyObject? and not as Any.
Related
What does self mean in Objective-C? When and where should I use it?
Is it similar to this in Java?
self refers to the instance of the current class that you are working in, and yes, it is analagous to this in Java.
You use it if you want to perform an operation on the current instance of that class. For example, if you are writing an instance method on a class, and you want to call a method on that same instance to do something or retrieve some data, you would use self:
int value = [self returnSomeInteger];
This is also often used for accessor methods on an instance (i.e. setters and getters) especially with setter methods, if they implement extra functionality rather than just setting the value of an instance variable, so that you do not have to repeat that code over and over when you want to set the value of that variable, for example:
[self setSomeVariable:newValue];
One of the most common uses of self is during initialization of a class. Sample code might look like:
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if(self!=nil) {
//Do stuff, such as initializing instance variables
}
return self;
}
This invokes the superclass's (via super) initializer, which is how chained initialization occurs up the class hierarchy. The returned value is then set to self, however, because the superclass's initializer could return a different object than the superclass.
self is an implied argument to all Obj-C methods that contains a pointer to the current object in instance methods, and a pointer to the current class in class methods.
Another implied argument is _cmd, which is the selector that was sent to the method.
Please be aware that you only get self and _cmd in Obj-C methods. If you declare a C(++) method, for instance as a callback from some C library, you won't get self or cmd.
For more information, see the Using Hidden Arguments section of the Objective-C Runtime Programming guide.
Yes, it's exactly the same as "this" in Java - it points to the "current" object.
Two important notes:
The class itself, e.g. UIView (I'm NOT talking about a UIView object) is itself an object, and there is a self associated with it. So for example, you can reference self in a class method like this:
// This works
+(void) showYourself { [self performSelector: #selector(makeTheMostOfYourself)]; }
// Class method!
+(void) makeTheMostOfYourself { }
Note that the compiler does NOT raise any warnings or errors, even if the self you mean to reference is an object and not a class. It is VERY easy to cause crashes this way, for example:
// This will crash!
+(void) showYourself { [self performSelector: #selector(makeTheMostOfYourself)]; }
// Object method!
-(void) makeTheMostOfYourself { }
// This will crash too!
-(void) showYourself2 { [self performSelector: #selector(makeTheMostOfYourself2)]; }
// Class method!
+(void) makeTheMostOfYourself2 { }
Sadly, this makes class methods a bit harder to use, which is unfortunate because they are a valuable tool for encapsulation through information hiding. Just be careful.
Wow, that many half-correct answers and misleading hints. This let me answer the Q even there is a accepted answer for years:
First of all: It is really hard to compare a concept of messaging/calling in the context of an early binding, static typing language as Java with a late binding, dynamically typing languages as Objective-C. At one point this will break. I would say: No, this is not similiar, since the typing and dispatching concepts of both language are fundamental different so nothing can be similar to the other one. However, …
Then we should differ between the "two sides" of self.
A. Using self
When you use it in a message, it is simply an object reference as any other:
[self doSomething];
[anotherObject doSomething];
Technically both lines works identically (accept of having a different receiver, of course). This especially means, that the first line does not lead to an execution of a method inside the class of self, because self does not necessarily refer to "that class". As every message inside Objective-C (single exception: messages to super)this can lead to the execution of a method in a subclass:
#interface A : NSObject
- (void)doSomething;
- (void)doAnotherThing;
#end
#implementation
- (void)doSomething
{
[self doAntoherThing];
}
- (void)doAnotherThing
{
NSLog( #"A" );
}
#interface B : A
- (void)doSomething; // Not necessary, simply as a marker
#end
#implementation B
- (void)doAnotherThing
{
NSLog( #"B" );
}
In a code like this
B *b = [B new;]
[b doSomething];
The line
[self doAnotherThing];
in class A will lead to the execution of -doAnotherThing (B), because messages to self are late bound as every other message. The result on the console will b "B", not "A". Using self as a receiver you should not think of a single special rule. There is completely none.
(And the above example is a very good example for using self in class methods, because the same situation can occur on class methods. Using the class itself breaks polymorphism, what is one of the worst idea at all in OOP. DO use self in class methods, too.)
B. Getting self
What is self pointing to? It points to the object to whom the message is sent that caused the execution of the current method.
Having …
…[someObject doSomething]… // some object is a reference to an instance object
… as a message, a method is called, in the most simple case …
- (void)doSomething
{ … }
In such a case, self can point to an instance of the class, the method belongs to. And it can point to an instance of a subclass, the method belongs to, too. You don't know. (And this information is preserved using self to send a message as explained above.)
If the message is sent to a class object, self points to the class object, that was the receiver of the message. This is completely analogous. Therefore it is possible that self points to a subclass object:
#interface A : NSObject
+ (void)doSomething;
+ (void)doAnotherThing;
#end
#implementation
+ (void)doSomething
{
[self doAntoherThing];
}
+ (void)doAnotherThing
{
NSLog( #"A" );
}
#interface B : A
- (void)doSomething; // Not necessary, simply as a marker
#end
#implementation B
+ (void)doAnotherThing
{
NSLog( #"B" );
}
Having this classes
…[A doSomething]…
self inside -doSomething (A) points to the class object of B. Therefore [self doAnotherThing] of B(!) is executed. This is clearly different from
+ (void)doSomething
{
[A doAntoherThing];
}
The latter version causes relevant harm to the principles of OOP.
As a side note it is possible that self inside a class method of a root class points to an instance object of the root class or any subclass. You have to keep this in mind, when writing categories on NSObject.
self is an object pointer to the current instances dispatch table. It is an implicit first argument to every member function of an object, and is assigned when that function is called.
In functions like init, you need to be careful that when you call the super class init you reassign self to be the return value as the super class init may redefine what self points to.
super is similar to self except it points to the superclass dispatch table.
What's the difference between declaring a #private ivar in the header file and declaring the same ivar in the class extension without #private? As far as I understand it's the same thing.
Also, can you declare a private property in the header?
The concept is to declare in the header file only those things (methods, properties, etc) which are public. Declare all private items in the implementation file's class extension.
This provides the class users only information that is available for their use and hides all else. It also make it easier for a user of the class quickly see the functionality available to him. Writing code is all about readability and understandability to the developer.
This way a developer is free to change anything that is not exposed in the header files without making any externally visible changes.
In recent versions of Objective this is finally fully releasable via class extensions.
What's the difference between declaring a #private ivar in the header file and declaring the same ivar in the class extension without #private?
There are a few differences. In short, variables declared in the header file are visible to subclasses and class categories. Variables declared in the implementation are not.
1) Instance variables declared in a class's main #interface block are available to external class categories or extensions, even if those variables are declared #private. E.g.:
// YourClass.h
#interface YourClass : NSObject {
#private
int _yourPrivateIVar;
}
#end
// MyExtension.m
#implementation YourClass(MyExtension)
- (void)reset { _yourPrivateIVar = 0; } // This is allowed.
#end
Instance variables declared in the implementation are not available to external class categories.
2) A base class and its subclass cannot both declare the same ivar in their #interface, even if both ivars are #private. E.g., this is not allowed:
#interface Base : NSObject
{
#private
int _foo;
}
#end
#interface Subclass : Base
{
#private
int _foo; // Error: Duplicate member _foo
}
#end
If both ivars are declared in a class extension or implementation block then not only does it compile but it works as expected: both classes have their own separate _foo ivars that do not conflict with one another. On other words, both variables are truly private and separate:
#implementation Base {
int _foo;
}
#end
#implementation Subclass {
int _foo;
}
- (void)reset { _foo = 123; } // Does not affect base class's _foo
#end
Note: If the base class and subclass declare a "private" property or method with the same name it will compile without warning or error, but it will fail spectacularly at runtime as both classes unknowingly interfere with each other's private data.
Feel lost after reading this section: A Non-Object Attribute
According to the Basic-Approach also contained in above link, I should have 2 attributes in my custom-code when handling "transient properties":
1st attribute, for the actually-wanted (un-supported) custom type => transient attribute
2nd attribute, for shadow-representation (concrete supported) type => persistent attribute
......
My reading was very enjoyable, until reached "A Non-Object Attribute" section, which puzzle me deeply, as quoted below:
...When you implement the entity’s custom class, you typically add an instance variable for the attribute. ...
《 OK, I can follow this...make an iVar is no big deal》
If you use an instance variable to hold an attribute, you must also implement primitive get and set accessors
《 OK, I know how to do primitive-accessor. why need them? because internal-optimized-storage inside MO can be efficiently used, I guess.》
#interface MyManagedObject : NSManagedObject
{
 NSRect myBounds; // I assume this suppose to be the **transient attribute**
}
#property (nonatomic, assign) NSRect bounds; // I assume this is the **persistent attribute**
#property (nonatomic, assign) NSRect primitiveBounds; // because complier forces me to implement below primitive-accessors ?
#end
- (NSRect)primitiveBounds
{
return myBounds; // accessing iVAR storage for **transient attribute**? I hope so
}
- (void)setPrimitiveBounds:(NSRect)aRect
myBounds = aRect; // accessing iVAR storage for **transient attribute**? I hope so
}
From here down below, I have... too many ???????????? unsolved
- (NSRect)bounds
{
[self willAccessValueForKey:#"bounds"]; //KVO notice of access **persistent attribute**, I guess
NSRect aRect = bounds; //will this invoke primitive-Getter ???
[self didAccessValueForKey:#"bounds"];
if (aRect.size.width == 0) //bounds has not yet been unarchived, Apple explained
 {
NSString *boundsAsString = [self boundsAsString]; // unarchiving pseudo method, I guess
if (boundsAsString != nil) //if that value is not nil, transform it into the appropriate type and cache it...Apple explained.
{
bounds = NSRectFromString(boundsAsString); //will this invoke primitive-Setter???
}
}
return bounds;
}
I put my final question list here:
1, do I STILL need to have 2 attributes to handle NON-Object-Attribute, transient attribute and persistent attribute?
2, how can iVar "myBounds" be represented/connected with "#property bounds"? Is this "#property bounds" the modeled-property in a MOM?
3, what is the purpose of implementation of primitive-accessor here? for enforcing me write KVO (will...did...) methods pair? for transferring values (in and out) between iVar "myBounds"and "#property bounds"?
4, in this line of code
bounds = NSRectFromString(boundsAsString); //will this invoke primitive-Setter???
is primitive-Setter called OR public/standard-Setter gets called? Why?
In iOS, there are the very convenient NSStringFromCGRect and CGRectFromNSString functions. Why not just use those and store a string?
Your questions:
Yes, you need the 2 attributes, as explained in the documentation.
Yes, this is based on the managed object model. The primitiveX name for x is generated / interpreted automatically.
You need the primitive accessor methods here to make it KVC - which is not the case with primitives.
I am working on a subclass of SKNode called UtilityNode
#implementation UtilityNode
- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)rootName {
self = [super init];
if(self) {
[self setName:rootName]; // ?
}
return self;
}
#end
I am setting up a designated initialiser for the new node initWithName: where I am trying to initialise the name of the superclass SKNode when creating the new subclass. I was under the impression that I could just write _name = rootName; but _name was flagged as undeclared. I have got it working (as you can see above) by using [self setName:rootName]; Can anyone shine some light on this, am I doing this correctly?
This is correct. The _name instance variable was probably declared as #private (the default for auto-synthesizing properties) and therefore it is inaccessible by subclasses.
In well-designed class hierarchies and specifically framework classes for which there is no source code available you will find most if not all instance variables inaccessible by subclasses because it hides the implementation detail and makes future changes to the base class possible. Imagine if the base class needed to verify the name property whenever it changes - if subclasses could assign directly to the ivar they would bypass the checks added to the ivar setter method.
PS: I find dot notation friendlier on the eyes:
self.name = rootName;
UPDATE regarding the "don't send messages to self in init/dealloc" rule:
This can easily be avoided by redesigning the class to not take non-essential parameters in its init method. A cleaner version of this subclass would be:
UtilityNode* un = [UtilityNode node];
un.name = #"some name";
If the node absolutely requires the parameter to be set, warn the user via an NSAssert in the method where the name is required to be valid.
I need to use something like a C array:
MyStruct theArray[18][18];
but I cannot define it as a property:
#property (nonatomic) MyStruct theArray[18][18];
then I have to:
#implementation MyClass
{
MyStruct theArray[18][18];
}
But is this good in term of modern Objective C guideline?
Thanks
Update:
I know I can define the struct as class and use NSMutableArray to handle it, but it is more convenient to use the C array in my case, the main concern is coding guideline and memory issue, as I do not allocate or release the theArray[18][18], not sure what its life cycle is, and I'm using ARC.
Properties cannot be of array type, while public instance variables do not provide sufficient encapsulation. A more Objective C - like approach would be defining a private 2D array, and a pair of methods or a method returning a pointer to access it - something along these lines:
// For small structs you can use a pair of methods:
-(MyStruct)getElementAtIndexes:(NSUInteger)i and:(NSUInteger)j;
-(void)setElementAtIndexes:(NSUInteger)i and:(NSUInteger)j to:(MyStruct)val;
// For larger structs you should use a single method that returns a pointer
// to avoid copying too much data:
-(MyStruct*)elementAtIndexes:(NSUInteger)i and:(NSUInteger)j;
How about use pointers instead?
#property (nonatomic) MyStruct **theArray;
The answers so far are great. . . here's two more options:
1. A bit hacky
(I'm not sure if this requires Objective-C++)
You can create the array as a public property like so:
#interface MyClass
{
#public:
MyStruct theArray[18][18];
}
#end
And then access it as follows:
myClass->theArray
2. Return a Struct
While you can't return a C-style array, you can return a struct:
typedef struct
{
CGPoint textureCoordinates[kMaxHillVertices];
CGPoint borderVertices[kMaxBorderVertices];
} HillsDrawData;
#interface Hills : NSObject
{
HillsDrawData _drawData;
}
- (HillsDrawData)drawData; //This will get cleaned up when the class that owns it does.
#end