How to convert switch state into integer in ios - ios

I am using five switches for handling different types of notifications. To remember the state of the switch, I am thinking of converting state of five switches into an integer. For example, if my switches status is as follow, 01010 then the integer should be 10. Please help me how to achieve this.

At first extract each switch value and store it in a single string
Now convert the string to decimal /integer value like this:-
NSString * binarystring = #"01010";
long decimalValue = strtol([binarystring UTF8String], NULL, 2);
NSLog(#"%ld", decimalValue );
Edit
Get all switch control value in single string:-
NSString *binarystring = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"%i%i%i%i%i",self.switch1.isOn,self.switch2.isOn,self.switch3.isOn,self.switch4.isOn,self.switch5.isOn];

(Why bother encoding your 5 switch values into a single integer? Storing 5 Booleans is not hard. That said the question is how to do it...)
Important aside: BOOL values are not 0 and 1
Objective-C is a superset of C, and in the original C there was no Boolean type - instead it just used an integer type with the interpretation that 0 was false and anything else was true.
Objective-C defines BOOL as a signed char, that is an 8-bit signed integer type (as characters are just an integer type in C). So in Objective-C 0 is false, and -128..-1, 1..127 are all true. NO is defined as 0 and YES as 1, but various operations may result in other values.
To get a 0 or 1 from a BOOL b you can use the conditional operator:
b ? 1 : 0
However the built in logical operators by definition will always return 0 or 1 and never any of the other possible values. The ! operator is logical not, and two not's get you back to where you started so:
!!b
will also give you a 0 or 1.
In any code that takes a BOOL and tries to use it as a 0 or 1 you should really use one of the above (or an equivalent).
One way to solve it: using strings
Your question has been interpreted as using a string as an intermediary during the encoding. First assume the class has your five buttons stored in an instance variable as a simple array (it will allow us to loop):
const int kSWITCH_COUNT = 5; // let's not hard code it everywhere
#implemention MyClass
{
Switch *switches[kSWITCH_COUNT];
}
then the string method goes something like:
- (void) stringMethod
{
NSMutableString *binarystring = NSMutableString.new;
// build up the string one value at a time, note the !! so we only get 0 or 1 values
for (int ix = 0; ix < kSWITCH_COUNT; ix++)
[binarystring appendFormat:#"%d", !!switches[ix].isOn];
long decimalValue = strtol([binarystring UTF8String], NULL, 2);
NSLog(#"Encoded: 0x%lx", decimalValue);
}
This method works, but it is rather a circuitous way of getting to the result - you have 5 integer (Boolean) values and you want to combine them into an integer, why involve strings?
A better way to solve it: using integers
(Objective-)C provides bitwise operators to do shifts, or, and, etc. operations which treat integer types as an ordered collection of bits - which is what they are on a computer.
The << operator shifts left, e.g. 0x1 << 1 produces 0x2, i.e. << 1 is equivalent to multiplication by 2. The | operator is bitwise or, e.g. 0x1 << 1 | 1produces0x3`. The answer to your question now follows easily:
- (void) shiftMethod
{
unsigned int encoded = 0;
for (int ix = 0; ix < kSWITCH_COUNT; ix++)
encoded = (encoded << 1) | !!switches[ix].isOn;
NSLog(#"Encoded: 0x%x", encoded);
}
If you don't like shifts and ors you can use multiplication and addition:
encoded = encoded * 2 + !!switches[ix].isOn;
The above solves the problem directly, no converting to/from intermediate strings. It happens to be a lot faster as well, but in the overall scheme of an application neither approach is probably going to take a significant proportion of the execution time and you shouldn't select based on that.
A Third Way
If you are going to wish to set/get the individual bits of an integer a lot you can use struct types with bit-field widths. These let you set/get the bits of an integer directly - no shifting etc. required - and you may find them useful, but they are rather "low level". Any good book on C will show you how to use these.
HTH

Related

get int value including zeros (incase if it starts with 0) from string

I have a question regarding the converting string to intvalue. My question and issue is in case if I have string called "001223" I am getting 1223 as intvalue. But I want to get the 001223 as final int value. Please let me know if my question is not clear. Thanks for your time
There is no difference in value between the numbers 001223 , 1223, 2446/2 or 1223.000. They all refer to the same number.
If you want to keep leading zeroes, then you need to either keep it as a string or maintain another piece of information so it can be rebuilt later, basically the number of zeroes at the front, such as:
struct sNumWithLeadingZeros {
size_t zeroCount;
unsigned int actualValue;
};
I'd probably suggest the former (keeping it as a string) since that's likely to be less effort.
"Leading zeros" are to do with the textual representation of an integer, when stored as integer values in a computer the leading zeros do not exist.
However, if what you want to do is display the number with the same number of digits it had before being converted from text then: if the string contains only the digits of the number, e.g. you have #"001223" then you can take the length of this string to determine the number of digits. Later when converting the number back to string format you can use a formatted conversion, e.g. stringWithFormat:, and a format specifier which specifies the required number of digits. You'll need to read up on formats in the documentation, but here is an example:
NSString *input = #"001223";
int x = [input intValue];
int digits = (int)input.length;
NSString *output = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%0*d", digits, x];
The value of output will be the same as input. The format broken down is: 0 - leading zeros; * use a dynamic field with, will use the value of digits; d - int.
HTH
One cannot prefix leading 0s in int data type. But if you see 0 prefix then the number is octal not decimal. Octal value can be created by changing base. For this you can use wrapper class like Integer.
But if one wants leading 0s for displaying data then he/she can use following code
public class Sample
{
public static void main(final String[] argv)
{
System.out.printf("%06d", 1223);
System.out.println();
}
}

Setting Integer value in Objective c

I have recently started programming in iOS.. I am going through a code snippet that declares the following variables:
int rc = 0X00;
sqlite3_stmt *pStmt = 0X00;
FMStatement *stat = 0X00;
BOOL abc = 0X00;
what does this mean?? I read somewhere that setting 0X00 in a reference variable means setting it to NULL (in C). But what does setting a BOOL type variable and an int type variable to 0X00 mean??
I suggest you read up about the basics of programming languages, specifically, C programing with pointers. Objective-C is a superset of C and follows many similar rules.
But to your question:
The 0x in front of the literal values in the code (0x00) specifies that the value is interpreted as hexadecimal rather than decimal. But 0x00(hex) is the same as 0(dec).
int rc = 0x00; //same as int rc = 0;
int is a primitive type in both Obj-C and C that specifies an integer, effectively you are initializing the variable. In the C language you must initialize variables otherwise they could be pointing at a random piece of memory.
Therefore, examine this code:
int a;
int b = 0;
//a is NOT equal to b!
In C, the variable 'a' has not be initialized and therefore its not typically safe to assume that it will be initialized to 0. Always initialize your variable.
If you did a printf, or an NSLog of the variable 'a' you will see that it prints some huge number and it doesnt make sense (sometimes this is compiler dependent)
The same can be said for a BOOL. Although setting a BOOL to 0 is the same as setting it to false;
BOOL flag = 0; //The same as saying BOOL flag = false;
Now for the final part of your code:
FMStatement *stat = 0X00;
Often in Objective-C if you are dealing with pointers and objects you need to initialise the pointer to point at some memory address. The actual memory address is usually determined by the stack/heap and you don't need to worry about that. But you do need to ensure that the pointer isn't pointing to the wrong location (known as a garbage pointer).
To do this, we simply set our pointer to nil. eg:
FMStatement *stat = nil; //This pointer is now safe. Although memory still hasnt been allocated for it yet
This is usually taken care of for you though when you immediately allocate the memory for an object, therefore in this case you don't need to worry about initializing the pointer to nil:
FMStatement *stat = [[FMStatement alloc]init];
Like I said, I recommend you read about basic C programming, allocations, pointers, datatypes, initialising etc, once you have a grasp of this, then move to Objective-C which then builds ontop of it with Object-Oriented stuff.
Good luck.
0X00 is simply 0 in hexadecimal notation. So,
int rc = 0X00;
is the same as
int rc = 0;
Same for BOOL variables, where 0 is the same as NO. Using 0X00 is odd -- it'd make more sense to use 0 or NO where appropriate, and use nil for the pointers.

Odd atoi(char *) issue

I'm experiencing a very odd issue with atoi(char *). I'm trying to convert a char into it's numerical representation (I know that it is a number), which works perfectly fine 98.04% of the time, but it will give me a random value the other 1.96% of the time.
Here is the code I am using to test it:
int increment = 0, repetitions = 10000000;
for(int i = 0; i < repetitions; i++)
{
char randomNumber = (char)rand()%10 + 48;
int firstAtoi = atoi(&randomNumber);
int secondAtoi = atoi(&randomNumber);
if(firstAtoi != secondAtoi)NSLog(#"First: %d - Second: %d", firstAtoi, secondAtoi);
if(firstAtoi > 9 || firstAtoi < 0)
{
increment++;
NSLog(#"First Atoi: %d", firstAtoi);
}
}
NSLog(#"Ratio Percentage: %.2f", 100.0f * (float)increment/(float)repetitions);
I'm using the GNU99 C Language Dialect in XCode 4.6.1. The first if (for when the first number does not equal the second) never logs, so the two atoi's return the same result every time, however, the results are different every time. The "incorrect results" seemingly range from -1000 up to 10000. I haven't seen any above 9999 or any below -999.
Please let me know what I am doing wrong.
EDIT:
I have now changed the character design to:
char numberChar = (char)rand()%10 + 48;
char randomNumber[2];
randomNumber[0] = numberChar;
randomNumber[1] = 0;
However, I am using:
MAX(MIN((int)(myCharacter - '0'), 9), 0)
to get the integer value.
I really appreciate all of the answers!
atoi expects a string. You have not given it a string, you have given it a single char. A string is defined as some number of characters ended by the null character. You are invoking UB.
From the docs:
If str does not point to a valid C-string, or if the converted value would be out of the range of values representable by an int, it causes undefined behavior.
Want to "convert" a character to its integral representation? Don't overcomplicate things;
int x = some_char;
A char is an integer already, not a string. Don't think of a single char as text.
If I'm not mistaken, atoi expects a null-terminated string (see the documentation here).
You're passing in a single stack-based value, which does not have to be null-terminated. I'm extremely surprised it's even getting it right: it could be reading off hundreds of garbage numbers into eternity, if it never finds a null-terminator. If you just want to get the number of a single char (as in, the numeric value of the char's human-readable representation), why don't you just do int numeric = randomNumber - 48 ?

NSData Packet Interpretation

I have a fairly complex issue regarding the interpretation of packets in an app that I am making. A host app sends a packet to client apps with the following structure:
[Header of 10 bytes][peerID of selected client of variable byte length][empty byte][peerID of a client of variable byte length][empty byte][int of 4 bytes][peerID of client of variable byte length][empty byte][int of 4 bytes]
Here is a sample packet that is produced under this structure:
434e4c50 00000000 006a3134 31303837 34393634 00313233 38313638 35383900 000003e8 31343130 38373439 36340000 0003e8
Converted it looks like this:
CNLP j1410874964 1238168589 Ë1410874964 Ë
"CNLP j" is the packet header of 10 bytes. "1410874964" is the peerID of the selected client. "1238168589" is the peerID of another client. " Ë" has an int value of 1000. "1410874964" is the peerID of the other client (in this case, the selected client). " Ë" also has an int value of 1000. Basically, in this packet I am communicating 2 things - who the selected client is and the int value associated with each client.
My problem exists on the interpretation side (client side). To interpret this particular type of packet, I use the following method:
+ (NSMutableDictionary *)infoFromData:(NSData *)data atOffset:(size_t) offset
{
size_t count;
NSMutableDictionary *info = [NSMutableDictionary dictionaryWithCapacity:8];
while (offset < [data length])
{
NSString *peerID = [data cnl_stringAtOffset:offset bytesRead:&count];
offset += count;
NSNumber *number = [NSNumber numberWithInteger:[data cnl_int32AtOffset:offset]];
offset += 4;
[info setObject:number forKey:peerID];
}
return info;
}
Typically, each of these packets range between 49 and 51 bytes. "offset" is set in a previous method to reflect the byte number after the packet header plus the empty byte after the selected player (in the case of the above packet, 21). "count" is initialized with a value of 1. In the case of this particular example, length is 51. The following method is passed the above arguments:
- (NSString *)cnl_stringAtOffset:(size_t)offset bytesRead:(size_t *)amount
{
const char *charBytes = (const char *)[self bytes];
NSString *string = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:charBytes + offset];
*amount = strlen(charBytes + offset) + 1;
return string;
}
This method is supposed to read through a variable length string in the packet, set the offset to the byte immediately after the empty byte pad behind the peerID string, and return the string that was read. "amount" is then set to the number of bytes the method read through for the string (this is becomes the new value of count after returning to the first method). "offset" and "count" are then added together to become the new "offset" - where interpretation of the int portion of the packet will begin. The above arguments are passed to the following method:
- (int)cnl_int32AtOffset:(size_t)offset
{
const int *intBytes = (const int *)[self bytes];
return ntohl(intBytes[offset / 4]);
}
This method is intended to return the 32 bit (4 byte) int value read at the current offset value of the packet. I believe that the problem exists in this method when the offset is a number that is not divisible by 4. In this case, the first int value of 1000 was correctly interpreted, and 32 was returned as the offset during the first iteration of the while loop. However, during the second iteration, the int value interpreted was 909377536 (obtained from reading bytes 36340000 in the packet instead of bytes 000003E8) This was likely due to the fact that the offset during this iteration was set to 47 (not divisible by 4). After interpreting the 32 bit int in the category above, 4 is added to the offset in the first method to account for a 4 byte (32 bit int). If my intuition about an offset not divisible by zero is correct, any suggestions to get around this problem are greatly appreciated. I have been looking for a way to solve this problem for quite some time and perhaps fresh eyes may help. Thanks for any help!!!
The unportable version (undefined behaviour for many reasons):
return ntohl(*(const int *)([self bytes]+offset));
A semi-portable version is somewhat trickier, but in C99 it appears that you can assume int32_t is "the usual" two's complement representation (no trap representations, no padding bits), thus:
// The cast is necessary to prevent arithmetic on void* which is nonstandard.
const uint8_t * p = (const uint8_t *)[self bytes]+offset;
// The casts ensure the result type is big enough to hold the shifted value.
// We use uint32_t to prevent UB when shifting into the sign bit.
uint32_t n = ((uint32_t)p[0]<<24) | ((uint32_t)p[1]<<16) | ((uint32_t)p[2]<<8) | ((uint32_t)p[3]);
// Jump through some hoops to prevent UB on "negative" numbers.
// An equivalent to the third expression is -(int32_t)~n-1.
// A good compiler should be able to optimize this into nothing.
return (n <= INT32_MAX) ? (int32_t)n : -(int32_t)(UINT32_MAX-n)-1;
This won't work on architectures without 8-bit bytes, but such architectures probably have different conventions for how things are passed over the network.
A good compiler should be able to optimize this into a single (possibly byte-swapped) load on suitable architectures.

Why the need to use enif_compare?

Why does
int enif_compare(ERL_NIF_TERM lhs, ERL_NIF_TERM rhs)
need to be used instead of just
if( lhs == rhs ) return 1;
I believe it matters that I am comparing atoms.
ERL_NIF_TERM is an opaque datatype and, to the best of my knowledge, is more akin to a pointer than a value. In fact, here's the definition: typedef unsigned long ERL_NIF_TERM (technically there are a few variants, but they're all integers with the same size as a memory address on the system)
So, you must use enif_compare for the same reason you must use str_cmp when comparing C strings: the referenced values may be identical, but the values you get are not representative of that.
Consider:
char a[] = "test";
char b[] = "test";
printf("%d\n", a == b);
Logically, you and I know that the strings are identical, but the values a and b are actually pointers to the contained value. So when you do a regular compare (==), it's comparing the pointers, not the underlying value. Since they are distinct values within the function, they are allocated to different memory addresses, and as a result, a != b, but str_cmp(a, b) == true

Resources