I have this small class called City that simply holds some information about a city, here it is:
class com.weatherwidget.City {
var zipCode:String;
var forecastText:Array = new Array(5);
}
When I have an array of cities and I change one of the forecastText of one city it will change that forecastText for all of the cities.
For example:
import com.weatherwidget.City;
var arr:Array = new Array();
arr.push(new City());
arr.push(new City());
arr[0].forecastText[0] = "Cloudy";
trace(arr[0].forecastText[0]);
trace(arr[1].forecastText[0]);
Will have the following output:
Cloudy
Cloudy
Even though I only changed arr[0].forecastText[0]. I think I must be misunderstanding something about arrays in objects for actionscript 2.
well the reason why ... hmmm ... little complicated to explain ...
alright ... ActionScript is prototype-oriented, as is ECMA-script ... classes are only a syntactic sugar introduced by actionscript 2 (this has changed yet again in as3, but that's a different subject) ...
so if this is the original code:
class com.weatherwidget.City {
var zipCode:String;
var forecastText:Array = new Array(5);
}
then this is, what actually happens:
//all classes get stuffed into _global, with packages being a property path:
if (_global.com == undefined) _global.com = {};
if (_global.com.weatherwidget == undefined) _global.com.weatherwidget = {};
//and the actual definition:
_global.com.weatherwidget.City = function () {};
_global.com.weatherwidget.City.prototype = { forecastText:new Array(5) }
the prototype object of City, that serves as prototype for instances of City, has a property called forecastText, which is an Array of length 5 ... so when looking up forecastText on an instance of City, it cannot be found directly and will be looked up in the prototype chain ... it will be found in the instance's prototype ... thus, all instances share the same Array ...
the difference is, that the second example gets translated to:
//same thing here:
if (_global.com == undefined) _global.com = {};
if (_global.com.weatherwidget == undefined) _global.com.weatherwidget = {};
//and the actual definition this time:
_global.com.weatherwidget.City = function () { this.forecastText = new Array(5); };
_global.com.weatherwidget.City.prototype = {}
as you might have noticed, declared members are only a compiletime thing ... if nothing is assigned to them, they simply will not exist at runtime ...
well, this explenation requires, that you either know JavaScript or ActionScript 1 a little, but i hope it helps ...
greetz
back2dos
The array needs to be initialized inside of a constructor for some reason or all the City objects will point to the same array. So the city class should look like:
class com.weatherwidget.City {
var zipCode:String;
var forecastIcons:Array;
function City() {
forecastIcons = new Array(5);
}
}
I still don't know why it must be initialized in a constructor since the array isn't static, so if anyone would like to explain this that would be much appreciated.
Related
I am trying to understand the value of this at different points in a script. Questions similar to mine have been answered in this forum but those answers are considerably above my current learning level.
In my code experiments, I am using console.logs to return the this value. The value returned is always as expected, but the format of the returned value is inconsistent, which leads me to wonder why.
This code returns the expected Window object for the first 3 log commands to be executed but returns only the object literal for the 4th command, executed from the object's method.
var myName = {
name: "James",
sayName: function() {
console.log(this, 4);
console.log(this.name)
}
}
console.log(this, 1);
function myFunction() {
console.log(this, 2);
function nestFunction() {
console.log(this, 3);
myName.sayName();
}
nestFunction();
}
myFunction();
I have 3 questions: Why doesn't console.log return the name of the object? Is there a way to make it do so? Is there a simple way to do that other than console.log? Any help would be appreciated.
Ok I was going through your code to see what you specifically mean
here is the short explanation as to why THIS is different in some of the places
This keyword refers to the object it belongs to. Generally you used it to refer to the global window object .That's what is reflecting in your console log 1,2,3 .
Calling this in static javaScript object will return the javaScript object ,not the window object that is what is reflecting in the console.log(this,4).
So it gives you a way to call elements inside a static object .
Another way to understand this keyword is to look at constructors .The best example of the keyword
this
is inside a constructor function
var myObj = function(){
function myObj(ref)
{
this.name = "";
this.Item = "";
this.ref = ref;
this.speak();
}
myObj.prototype.speak =function()
{
this.name = 'James';
this.item = 'cheese';
console.log(this.ref)
//and the constuctor object
console.log(this)
}
return myObj;
}();
var e = new myObj('a Refrence string');
This should give you a basic understanding of how this works
here is more info to get you started Wschools.com
I'm passing an array of a specific model by reference between ViewControllers.
If I change any value of a specific element in the array it reflects well in all ViewControllers but when I remove an element from that array it doesn't reflect to the other controllers.
Does the remove(at: ) function create new array and refer to another address?
And if so how to delete an element without changing the address of array so it can reflect this change on the other view controllers?
Swift Arrays are value types (specifically, an array is a struct), not reference types, so you are mistaken when you say that you are "passing an array of a specific model by reference between view controllers". You can only ever pass a Swift array as a value.
Arrays, like other structs, have copy-on-modify semantics. As soon as you change the array itself a copy is made and the change is made to the copy.
Now, in your case the array contains references to model objects; When you update the model object you change the object itself, not the reference held in the array, so you see the change reflected in all of your view controllers.
An analogy might be the difference between adding a house to a street (which changes the street itself) versus changing the occupants of an existing house on the street.
I would suggest you implement a model object that provides abstraction from the underlying array so that you have better code and avoid the issue with array references.
One approach could be something like:
struct MyModel {
let name: String
let size: Int
}
class MyData {
private var _models = [MyModel]()
var models: [MyModel] {
return _models
}
func insert(model: MyModel) {
self._models.append(model)
}
func removeModel(at: Int) {
guard at >= 0 && at < _models.count else {
return
}
self._models.remove(at: at)
}
}
Although this isn't ideal as it still requires model consumers to know indices in the underlying array. I would prefer something like this:
struct MyModel: Hashable {
let name: String
let size: Int
}
class MyData {
private var _models = [MyModel]()
var models: [MyModel] {
return _models
}
func insert(model: MyModel) {
self._models.append(model)
}
func remove(model: MyModel) -> Bool {
if let index = self._models.index(of: model) {
_models.remove(at: index)
return true
} else {
return false
}
}
}
Now I don't need to know what internal collection MyData uses to store the models.
If you need to pass an array (or any other value type) by reference, you could go through an intermediate structure that manages the indirection for you.
[EDIT] changed to use KeyPaths available in Swift 4.
// Generic class to hold a "weak" reference to a property from an object
// including properties that are valued types such as arrays, structs, etc.
// This is merely an encapsulation of Swift's native KeyPath feature
// to make the code a bit more readable and simpler to use
//
class ReferenceTo<ValueType> { var value:ValueType! { get { return nil} set {} } }
class Reference<OwnerType:AnyObject,ValueType>:ReferenceTo<ValueType>
{
internal weak var owner:OwnerType!
internal var property:ReferenceWritableKeyPath<OwnerType,ValueType>! = nil
internal var valueRef:KeyPath<OwnerType,ValueType>! = nil
init(_ owner:OwnerType, _ property:ReferenceWritableKeyPath<OwnerType,ValueType>)
{ (self.owner,self.property) = (owner,property) }
init(_ owner:OwnerType, get valueRef:KeyPath<OwnerType,ValueType>)
{ (self.owner,self.valueRef) = (owner,valueRef) }
override var value:ValueType!
{
get { return valueRef != nil ? owner?[keyPath:valueRef] : owner?[keyPath:property] }
set { owner?[keyPath:property] = newValue }
}
}
With this generic class you can create references to valued type properties of object instances and manipulate them anywhere in your code as if the valued type property was a reference type.
// Example class with a read/write and a read-only property:
class MyObject
{
var myArray = [1,2,3,4]
var total:Int { return myArray.reduce(0,+) }
}
var instance:MyObject! = MyObject()
// create a reference to the array (valued type)
// that can be used anywhere and passed around as a parameter
let arrayRef = Reference(instance, \.myArray)
// the value is accessed and manipulated using the
// "value" property of the reference
arrayRef.value.remove(at:2)
arrayRef.value.append(5)
print(instance.myArray) // [1,2,4,5]
// Read-only properties can also be manipulated as
// references
let valueRef = Reference(instance, get:\.total)
print(valueRef.value) // 12
The Reference class allows passing the value as a reference to function parameters
// a function that expects a reference to an array
// would be declared as follows
func changeArray(_ array:ReferenceTo<[Int]>)
{ array.value.insert(9, at: 1) }
// the reference can also be used as an inout parameter
func shift(_ array:inout [Int])
{ array = Array(array.dropFirst()) + Array(array.prefix(1)) }
changeArray(arrayRef)
shift(&arrayRef.value!)
print(instance.myArray) // [9,2,4,5,1]
...
// the reference uses a weak link to the owner
// of the referenced property or value
// so there will be no strong reference cycle issues even
// if the reference is used in an object held strongly
// by the owner itself
instance = nil
print(arrayRef.value) // none ... no more value after the owner is gone
I want to be able to modify my array of objects using map in Swift of the fly, without looping through each element.
Before here were able to do something like this (Described in more details here:
gnomes = gnomes.map { (var gnome: Gnome) -> Gnome in
gnome.age = 140
return gnome
}
Thanks for Erica Sadun and others, new proposals have gone through and we're now getting rid of C-style loops and using var inside the loop.
In my case I'm first getting a warning to remove the var in then an error my gnome is a constant (naturally)
My question is : How do we alter arrays inside a map or the new styled loops for that matter to be fully prepared for Swift 3.0?
If you want to keep that syntax, just use a (mutable) temporary variable
gnomes = gnomes.map { (gnome: Gnome) -> Gnome in
var mutableGnome = gnome
mutableGnome.age = 140
return mutableGnome
}
(Below follows the case where Gnome is a reference type; a class -- since you haven't showed us how you've defined Gnome. For the case where Gnome as value type (a struct), see #vadian:s answer)
The removal of var will not effect using .map to mutate mutable members of an array of reference type objects. I.e., you could simply use your old approach (omitting however, the var in the .map closure signature).
class Gnome {
var age = 42
}
var gnomes = [Gnome(), Gnome(), Gnome()]
gnomes = gnomes.map {
$0.age = 150
return $0
}
/* result */
gnomes.forEach { print($0.age) } // 3x 150
However, in case you just want to modify your original array rather than assigning the result of .map to a new array, .forEach might be a more appropriate choice than .map.
gnomes.forEach { $0.age = 140 }
/* result */
gnomes.forEach { print($0.age) } // 3x 140
Given:
struct Gnome {
var age: Int = 0
}
var gnomes = Array(count: 5, repeatedValue: Gnome())
... there are two decent options. The first is as #vadian put it:
gnomes = gnomes.map{
var gnome = $0
gnome.age = 70
return gnome
}
Whilst the second keeps control over "ageing" private and simplifies mapping at the point of call:
struct Gnome {
private(set) var age: Int = 0
func aged(age: Int) -> Gnome {
var gnome = self
gnome.age = age
// any other ageing related changes
return gnome
}
}
gnomes = gnomes.map{ $0.aged(140) }
Of course, reference types still have their place in programming, which may well be a better fit in this case. The friction we are experiencing here suggests that we are trying to treat these structures as if they were objects. If that is the behaviour you need, then you should consider implementing Gnome as a class.
I am currently learning swift and am experimenting with data structures. In may code I have certain routines with a name(String) and several tasks(Array of Strings). These values are in a structure.
So I am trying to add another value to the array after it has been initialized. My code is actually working, however I really think it very weird and odd and DO NOT think, that it is the way it should be done.
var routineMgr: routineManager = routineManager();
struct routine{
var name = "Name";
var tasks = [String]();
}
class routineManager: NSObject {
var routines = [routine]();
func addTask(name: String, desc: String){
//init routines with name and an array with certain values, here "Hallo" & "Moin"
routines.append(routine(name: name, tasks: ["Hallo","Moin"]));
//so i just put this part here to make the example shorter, but it would be in ad different function to make more sense
//adding a new value ("Salut") to the tasks array in the first routine
//getting current array
var tempArray = routines[0].tasks;
//appending new value to current value
tempArray.append("Salut");
//replacing old routine with a copy (same name), but the new array (with the appended salut)
routines[0] = routine(name: routines[0].name, tasks: tempArray);
}
}
I have tried some (to me) "more correct" ways, like:
routines[0].tasks.append("Salut");
But I always got tons of errors, which I also did not understand.
So my question now: How is it actually done correctly? And why does the second way not work?
Your help and advice is really appreciated!
You can create a function to append the values in the struct (that is what I would do). You can even use it to validade values or anything else you need to do before append, it can also return a boolean to let your code know if the value was successfully appended or not
var routineMgr: routineManager = routineManager();
struct routine{
var name = "Name";
var tasks = [String]();
mutating func addTask(task: String){
tasks.append(task)
}
}
class routineManager: NSObject {
var routines = [routine]();
func addTask(name: String, desc: String){
routines.append(routine(name: name, tasks: ["Hallo","Moin"]));
routines[0].addTask("Salut")
}
}
I hope that helps
I am learning how to build apps and working with Swift for this project.
I had a buddy help me pull data in from a website and it looks like he created classes with variables and mapped them to certain extensions (IE "Username") so when I call the variable data such as profile I would call it. The below uses luck_30 able to store "Stats.luck_30"
luck_30.text = profile.luck_30
So inside one of my variables that is in this "Profile" class is setup into an array. I can pull the array out of the class, but I can't seem to do for while statement replacing the [#] with a variable from the for command.
func aliveWorkers(profile: Profile) -> NSNumber{
var myworkers : Array = profile.workers!
//this test works and returns the proper value
var testworker: NSNumber = myworkers[0].alive!
println("The satus of the test worker is " + testworker.description)
/* This code is giving error "Could not find member alive" it does not ifor var
for ifor in myworkers{
var thisworker: NSNumber = myworkers[ifor].alive! as NSNumber
}
*/
return 42
}
Your variable ifor is not a counter, it is an actual object. You could do something like this:
for worker in myWorkers {
let workerIsAlive = worker.alive!
}
Alternatively, if you need the index,
for i in 0 ..< myWorkers.count {
let worker = myWorkers[i]
let workerIsAlive = worker.alive!
}
If you need both:
for (i, worker) in enumerate(myWorkers) {
let workerIsAlive = worker.alive!
}
And as a matter of style, I would stay away from NSNumber and use Int or Bool or whatever the data actually is. Also, it looks like the alive variable should not be optional, as you're unwrapping it everywhere. To avoid "mysterious" crashes later, you may want to think about making it a non-optional type.
when using a for in loop, your loop variable isn't an index, its the objects you're looping through. so..
func aliveWorkers() {
var myworkers = [1, 2, 3]
//this test works and returns the proper value
let testworker = myworkers[0]
print("The satus of the test worker is \(testworker)")
for ifor in myworkers {
print(ifor)
}
}
Notice a few things... you don't need to use + to concatenate those strings. you can just use string interpolation. \(variable) inserts the value of variable in the string.
Try to use let instead of var when you don't change the variable. You don't need to explicitly define type on variables either.