Does it matter how I order my methods in objective-C (mainly in the implementation file)?
#implementation UDDPlayerDetailsViewController
- (IBAction)cancel:(id)sender
{
[self.delegate playerDetailsViewControllerDidCancel:self];
}
-(IBAction)done:(id)sender
{
[self.delegate playerDetailsViewControllerDidSave:self];
}
so in a situation like this, it obviously does not matter which one(either cancel or done) i place first but im wondering if this holds true for all methods? Does the compiler just read through everything and then takes action or are there circumstances where placing one ahead of another in the file will have different results?
The order of methods does not matter, both in the #implementation and in the #interface sections.
In the #interface section it does not matter because there is no dependencies between methods there,
In the #implementation section it does not matter, because the #interface section (perhaps in combination with the class extension #interface) has listed all methods for the compiler, providing their signatures and removing potential ambiguities
Finally, the compiler lets you define completely "private" methods in the implementation section itself. The compiler is smart enough to look ahead for these added methods.
It used to matter, but it doesn't any more. That is because of the compiler, not the language.
It used to be that you had to declare a method before using it. Thus, if you had
-(void) methodA;
{
[self methodB];
}
-(void) methodB;
{
//Do stuff
}
You would get a warning that methodB was not defined.
If methodB was declared in your #interface you were fine.
Newer versions of the Clang compiler are able to handle forward references. I don't remember exactly which version of Xcode included this change. Xcode 4.6, maybe?
I know of no situation where it matters in Objective-C. In regular C, you need to declare methods before using them, so
void usesUndeclared() {
undeclaredFunction();
}
void undeclaredFunction() {}
will be an error, but
void undeclaredFunction;
void usesUndeclared() {
undeclaredFunction();
}
void undeclaredFunction() {}
Related
Hello I am having trouble using SimplePing I receive the following error when copying over the SimplePing.h and SimplePing.m files I downloaded from Apple SimplePing
No known class method for selector 'simplePingWithHostName:'
From this method in my SimplePingClient.m class:
-(void)pingHostname:(NSString*)hostName andResultCallBlock:(void(^)(NSString* latency))result
{
_resultCallback = result;
_pingClient = [SimplePing simplePingWithHostName:hostName]; // No known class method for selector 'simplePingWithHostName:'
_pingClient.delegate = self;
[_pingClient start];
}
I'm calling this method from another file like this, where there are no errors:
-(void)testNetworkLatency {
[SimplePingClient pingHostname:#"www.apple.com"
andResultCallback:^(NSString *latency) {
NSLog(#"your latency is: %#", latency ? latency : #"unknown");
}];
}
I tried changing [SimplePing simplePingWithHostName... in SimplePingClient.m to variations of pingHostname, initWithHostName, sendPingWithData but nothing has worked so far. Did something change with SimplePing or am I going wrong somewhere?
Link to a screenshot of all the methods available in SimplePing.h as you can see, there is no simplePingWithHostName
it is wise to read the class definitions before coping and pasting but once done you can take them for granted because thats what they are for. You will have much more fun when following them. But keep on trying as this is a classic beginner mistake in objC when taking over language concepts from elsewhere but not objC.
You will want to set a global variable to keep your simple ping object around.
#implementation YourClass {
SimplePing *_pingClient;
}
alternative in
#interface YourClass : YourInheritingClass <NeverGiveUpProtocol>
#property (nonatomic) SimplePing *pingClient;
#end
and in your implementation method allocation and initiation of your ping object is done like
_pingClient = [[SimplePing alloc] initWithHostName:hostName];
Also you will have to be careful with the definition of block parameters that are doing nothing and are set up to accept NSStrings. You can read about block definitions in methods here
https://riptutorial.com/objective-c/example/1761/blocks-as-method-parameters
You can tell the compiler that you don't need a specific parameter like so ..
if you cant avoid to define it.
-(void)yourmethod:(NSString*)hostname resultBlock:(void(^)())result {
#pragma unused(result)
// your stuff
}
Hint: SimplePing and SimplePingClient seem to be total different classes where the last one contains pingHostname: as external method. (Means you can call it without explicit initiation.) Ending up in a method definition like..
+(void)pingHostname:(NSString *)hostname; which is why you would need to call it directly on the ClassName.
The Apple example does not contain a class named SimplePingClient.
Thats probably result of your creative process. Yeah maybe you want to ping from the app you create to the same app on a different device - well, why not. Cheers
First of all; I don't know if this question is duplicate or not. Because I don't know how to search for this question.
Let me explain my question with scenario.
I've iOS 11 Project (Deployment target 9.2). Let's call it Master.
I've coded 2 POD Projects and Master project has reference for them.
POD1 has classes A.class B.class and C.class
POD2 has classes D.class E.class and F.class
Master project is using both POD1 and POD2
Here is the question; What if I want to remove POD1 reference and want to distribute project with just POD2?
I have to remove all codes inside Master which using POD1? I don't think so... It is very amateur way to do it. And there should be professional way to do it.
Maybe Run Script?
or
Maybe putting some flags inside code where using POD1 classes to exclude from build? So I don't get error as File Not Found..
I know the way using
#ifndef HIDE_<insert name here>
CODE
#endif
But don't think it's a correct way to do it..
Any ideas & suggestions are welcome.
Thank you.
Using Objective-C categories, you can conditionally compile groups of methods for different targets. Here's an example.
Let's say you have two targets that both use a class A. In one target (a background daemon) you need just the core functionality of class A. In the GUI version of your app you need the same functionality plus additional methods to support the user interface. The problem is that you can't simply compile all of class A in the daemon target because it will reference Cocoa classes that the daemon target doesn't get linked to. You need to isolate the user interface code and compile/link it only in the target that uses it. Here's how:
Base classes
A.h
#interface A : NSObject
#property NSUInteger someProperty;
- (void)doSomething;
#end
A.m
#implementation A
- (void)doSomething
{
// Do something useful
}
#end
Now define the GUI specific methods in a category:
A+ViewAdditions.h
#interface A (ViewAdditions)
#property (readonly,nonatomic) NSView* view;
#end
A+ViewAdditions.m
#implementation A (ViewAdditions)
- (NSView*)view
{
// Create a view that will display this object
NSView* view = [[NSView alloc] initWithFrame:NSZeroRect];
return view;
}
#end
In both targets, you include/compile the A.m module, so both targets compile the core class A which includes its someProperty and doSomething method. But in your GUI target, you also compile the A+ViewAdditions.m module. In your GUI app, the A class has a view property, but in your daemon it will not. You can test for this at runtime:
A* a = [A new];
if ([a respondsToSelector:#selector(view)])
NSLog(#"a.view is a %#",a.view.className); // prints "is a NSView"
else
NSLog(#"a has no view property");
This can be extended to subclasses:
B.h
#interface B : A
#end
B.m
#implementation B
#end
B+ViewAdditions.h
#interface B (ViewAdditions)
#end
B+ViewAdditions.m
#implementation B (ViewAdditions)
- (NSView*)view
{
NSTextField* fieldView = [[NSTextField alloc] initWithFrame:NSZeroRect];
return fieldView;
}
#end
And...
A* a = [A new];
B* b = [B new];
if ([a respondsToSelector:#selector(view)])
NSLog(#"a.view is a %#",a.view.className); // prints "is a NSView"
if ([b respondsToSelector:#selector(view)])
NSLog(#"b.view is a %#",b.view.className); // prints "is a NSTextField"
There are limitations to categories, which you should be aware of. The most problematic is that you can't add instance variables or stored properties to a class via a category. But category methods can access private variables in the class, and I'll sometimes define private ivars in the base class that only get used by the category. Your style may vary.
Working on a mixed framework. imported inside the Obj-C file but the internal classes are not visible, only the public ones.
The documentation clearly states the internal clasees should be available between Swift and Obj-C:
Importing Swift into Objective-C To import a set of Swift files in the same framework target as your Objective-C code, you don’t
need to import anything into the umbrella header for the framework.
Instead, import the Xcode-generated header file for your Swift code
into any Objective-C .m file you want to use your Swift code from.
Because the generated header for a framework target is part of the
framework’s public interface, only declarations marked with the public
modifier appear in the generated header for a framework target. You
can still use Swift methods and properties that are marked with the
internal modifier from within the Objective-C part of your framework,
as long they are declared within a class that inherits from an
Objective-C class. For more information on access-level modifiers, see
Access Control in The Swift Programming Language (Swift 2).
Code Sample (Create a new project with a framework)
// SwiftObject.swift
public class SwiftObject: NSObject {
public class func doSomething() {}
}
internal class YetAnotherSwiftObject: NSObject {
internal class func doSomething() {}
}
// SomeObject.m file
#implementation SomeObject
- (void)someMethod {
[SwiftObject doSomething];
}
- (void)someOtherMethod {
[YetAnotherSwiftObject doSomething]; // Use of undeclared identifier
}
#end
As indicated in the docs, declarations marked with internal modifier don't appear in the generated header, so the compiler does not know about them and thus complaints. Of course, you could send messages using performSelector approach, but that's not convenient and bug-prone. We just need to help the compiler know that those declarations are there.
First, we need to use #objc attribute variant that allows you to specify name for your symbol in Objective-C:
// SwiftObject.swift
#objc(SWIFTYetAnotherSwiftObject)
internal class YetAnotherSwiftObject: NSObject {
internal class func doSomething() {}
}
And then you just need to create #interface declaration with the methods you want to use in your code - so the compiler will be happy, and also apply SWIFT_CLASS macro with the symbol name you've specified earlier - so the linker would pick the actual implementation:
// SomeObject.m file
SWIFT_CLASS("SWIFTYetAnotherSwiftObject")
#interface YetAnotherSwiftObject : NSObject
+ (void)doSomething;
#end
#implementation SomeObject
- (void)someOtherMethod {
[YetAnotherSwiftObject doSomething]; // Should work now !!!
}
#end
I've used the interface declaration in .m file just for clarity, the better option would be to combine such declarations in .h file, and include it.
By declaring methods in that interface we're making a promise to compiler, and it won't complain if you'll put there a method that does not exist (or with wrong signature, etc.) Obviously, you'll crash in runtime in that case - so be cautious.
For me it just worked by checking: "Allow app extension API only". You find it by going to the project setting, select your target and then it is in the General tab under Deployment Info.
Can someone explain to me, why this does solve the problem?
While the above solution works (https://stackoverflow.com/a/33159964/5945317), it seems overly complicated and unintuitive:
Complicated, because it seems to add more things than necessary – I will provide a smoother solution below.
Unintuitive, because the objc macro SWIFT_CLASS resolves to SWIFT_RUNTIME_NAME, and the provided value is not actually the runtime name – nor is the objc class name in the header matching the Swift attribute param in #objc. Still, surprisingly, the solution works – but to me it is not clear why.
Here is what we have tested in our own project, and believe to be the better solution (using the example above):
// YetAnotherSwiftObject.swift
#objc(OBJCPREFIXYetAnotherSwiftObject)
internal class YetAnotherSwiftObject: NSObject {
#objc internal class func doSomething() {}
}
// OBJCPREFIXYetAnotherSwiftObject.h
#interface OBJCPREFIXYetAnotherSwiftObject : NSObject
+ (void)doSomething;
#end
That's it. The interface looks like a regular objc interface. This gives the added benefit that you can include it in other header files (which you cannot do if you use the SWIFT_CLASS macro, as it comes from the autogenerated Swift header file, which in turn you cannot include in an objc header, due to circular dependency).
On the Swift side, the only thing relevant is that you provide the class with the proper objc name. Mind that I only used the name prefix for language consistency – you can even just use YetAnotherSwiftObject everywhere (i.e., in the objc header and in the #objc attribute in Swift – but you need to keep this attribute with explicit naming in any case, and need to keep it consistent with the class name in the header).
This also makes your life easier if you're in the process of converting your objc framework step by step to Swift. You just keep the objc header as before, and now provide the implementation in Swift.
Methods and properties that are marked with the internal modifier and declared within a class that inherits from an Objective-C class are accessible to the Objective-C runtime.
so let's make use of that:
class MyInternalClass: NSObject {
#objc var internalProperty = 42
}
#interface MyPublicClass()
#end
#implementation MyPublicClass
+ (void) printValue {
Class myInternalClass = NSClassFromString(#"MyPackageNameIfAny.MyInternalClass");
id myInternalClassInstance = [myInternalClass new];
int value = [myInternalClassInstance performSelector:#selector(internalProperty)];
NSLog(#"Value is %d ", value); // "value is 42"
}
#end
Using the SWIFT_CLASS macro and #objc class attribute could easily lead to errors when archiving. This approach is safer.
In my class, I have a reference on an UIViewController and want to implement a delegate on this ViewController during runtime. The delegate has only one method (with two parameters) and when the delegate-method on the ViewController is invoked, my class should handle the call.
I am quite sure this is possible with some kind of method swizzling, etc. but I don't know how to accomplish this.
What you want is possible, but it's not method swizzling, since you don't want to switch to methods but add a new one. It can be done, thanks to Objective-C's dynamic nature, but it's still a dirty hack so also file a feature request with the library vendor.
What you want is class_addMethod() and a C function with the actual implementation for that. One more thing, Objective-C methods are C methods, but with two implicit parameters, self and _cmd, which have to keep in mind (both when creating your C method and when telling class_addMethod your methods signature. And here is an SSCE of how to pull something like that off:
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import <objc/runtime.h> // Required for class_addMethod()
#interface MyClass : NSObject
#end
#implementation MyClass
#end
#protocol MyProtocol <NSObject>
- (void)printString:(NSString *)string;
#end
// Note the method signature containing the
// two implicit parameters self and _cmd!
void MyClassPrinStringIMP(id self, SEL _cmd, NSString *string)
{
NSLog(#"Hi I'm %#:%s and this is the string: %#", self, sel_getName(_cmd), string);
}
void PimpMyClass()
{
// The last argument is the signature. First character is the return type, in our case void
// Then comes self and _cmd, followed by the NSString. You can use #encode() to find out how your
// type is encoded. Best is to build this string at runtime, since the encoding can change with architectures
class_addMethod([MyClass class], #selector(printString:), (IMP)MyClassPrinStringIMP, "v#:#");
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
#autoreleasepool
{
PimpMyClass();
id foo = [[MyClass alloc] init]; // id, to silence the compiler!
[foo printString:#"Hello World"];
}
return 0;
}
Example output:
Hi I'm <MyClass: 0x100101810>:printString: and this is the string: Hello World
Edit: Something that you may find is that the passed object is checked at runtime wether it conforms to a protocol or not using conformsToProtocol:. Since this code just adds the method implementation, it would still fail, but you can tell the runtime that you totally do implement that protocol with this one function call:
class_addProtocol([MyClass class], #protocol(MyProtocol));
Alternative: proxies
Objective-Cs dynamism and message forwarding is already praised by #JasperBlues, however, there is one particular class in Objective-C that is designed to do just that: NSProxy. It is designed to intercept sent messages and dispatching them dynamically to the relevant target, and does use the high-level NSInvocation approach. If you can pass a proxied object in some way as the delegate (depending on what your code allows for and what not), creating a NSProxy subclass might be the cleanest way to go.
However, note though that you then end up with a shim object that wraps over your other object, which comes with its own bag of pain and will break when you try to directly access variables via -> syntax. It's not a perfectly invisible proxy, but good enough for most cases.
Firstly, some comments indicate that what you're asking is instantly "a bad thing to do" or a "dirty hack". I disagree here. Most modern Object Oriented languages support these features, and they are used to good effect by numerous system-level frameworks. Of course it is human-nature to perhaps use these dynamic features where they're not really required (for fun or practice), even when a simpler approach would work fine. Beware of this.
Objective-C is admirable in that its somewhat of a legacy language and close to the "bare metal", and yet features a surprising level of dynamism, making it relatively easy to support these requirements without any external libraries or frameworks.
Besides using the class_addMethod guide that another answer correctly indicates, some other approaches are:
Message Forwarding: (recommended)
All NSObject sub-classes have the ability to forward a method that they're not able to respond to, to another target object. This is similar to the lower-level concept of trampolines. Apple publishes a guide on using this approach.
The advantages of using forward invocation is that it uses the NSInvocation level of abstraction, instead of directly calling the C ObjC runtime API. This abstracts the following details away:
Structs and primitives will be box/unboxed automatically
Dispatching to methods with a dynamic/unknown number of arguments becomes easy. Until arm64, this could be done using va_args, however on arm64 va_args can be copied directly to registers, and not popped off the stack.
Resolve Instance Method:
Instance methods are created by by registering a C function as the implementation to respond to a given message. This can be done neatly with blocks, using IMP_ImplementationWithBlock:
+ (BOOL)resolveInstanceMethod:(SEL)sel
{
IMP imp = imp_implementationWithBlock((__bridge id) objc_unretainedPointer(
^(id me, BOOL firstParam, NSString* secondParam)
{
//Implementation goes in here
return something; //something of type 'id'
}));
class_addMethod(self, sel, imp, "##:");
return YES;
}
return NO;
}
Using libffi:
Libffi can also do this kind of thing, though it should not be necessary if you're using pure Objective-C, as the runtime already has these features baked in.
I've made use of Class Extensions in the .m as a way to have "private" methods and variables. I've read that since Xcode 4.4, the compiler no longer needed the private methods declared.
For example this would compile even though helperMethodC is not declared:
in .h
#interface MyClass : NSObject
-(void)publicMethodA;
#end
in .m
#interface MyClass ()
- (void) pseudoPrivateMethodB;
#end
#implementation MyClass
- (void)publicMethodA
{
//Do Something
}
- (void)pseudoPrivateMethodB
{
[self helperMethodC];
}
- (void) helperMethodC
{
// Do something
}
While private methods no longer have to be declared to compile (helperMethodC), is there a style guide, historical reason, or rule that all private methods (i.e. helperMethodC) should still be declared? Or a "rule" for when to declare and not declare private methods?
Declare them if they help you. From a documentation point of view they are very useful. The compiler will also tell you if you have specified that a method will exist and then not implemented it. There is no rule, but its a good idea to add them. Consider how you'll feel if you have to come back in 6 months and edit the class - will having the methods listed there help you?
While private methods no longer have to be declared to compile (helperMethodC), is there a style guide, historical reason, or rule that all private methods (i.e. helperMethodC) should still be declared? Or a "rule" for when to declare and not declare private methods?
There are multiple conventions, but no standard.
You really should have them when/if you need to support older toolchains -- GCC or older versions of Clang.
Once that restriction is removed, I think it's best if you just phase the (redundant) declarations out where they are not needed. High warning levels and ARC semantics can guide you here.
If you introduce types:
Something * s = [array objectAtIndex:i];
s.string = #"string";
// rather than: [array objectAtIndex:i].string = #"string";
And name your selectors uniquely for the parameter/return types:
// BAD: May be ambiguous.
// Solution: Choose a more descriptive selector name.
// class A
- (void)setX:(int)x;
// class B
- (void)setX:(double)x;
then the compiler can inform you of ambiguities.