3

Ok, I have this prototype that was written by someone else in C# and I'm trying to put it into Objective-C. Now, I haven't had any formal experience with C# yet, so I don't know everything about it yet. I understand what the first three variables are, but I'm running into problems with what the fourth and fifth lines (c_data) are doing. Is the fourth declaring a method and then the fifth defining it or what's happening? Thanks for your help!

public class c_data {
    public double value;
    public int label;
    public int ID;
    public c_data() { }
    public c_data(double val) {
        value = val;
    }
}
3
  • 1
    That is some mighty sad looking C# code there. I hope you do better with naming and formatting when you convert it. Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 15:20
  • You're telling me. I have a ton of code just like this that I have to convert within a week. Long gone are the nights of peaceful sleep and here come the all-nighters! Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 15:46
  • I agree and this is probably an example from a text book. Which is why so many programming books are horrible. If you wouldn't do it in real code then don't teach someone how to do it in fake code 'cause in 5 years you'll have a bunch of code that looks like your examples... I'm talking to you Microsoft and the myStupidPrefix. Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 18:11

7 Answers 7

16

The fourth and fifth lines are constructors in C#. They are the equivalent to [[c_data alloc] init] chains in objective-c. C# allows you to overload constructors based on the parameters they take. This is equivalent to having two different initialization methods in Objective-C:

@interface CData : NSObject
{
   double value;
   int label;
   int ID;
}

@property double value;
@property int label;
@property int ID;

-(id) init;
-(id) initWithValue:(double)value;

@end
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

5 Comments

Thanks so much...I would have been fumbling around this for another hour if it wasn't for you.
(Changed init return types to "id" and declared to extend NSObject.)
Good answer, particularly from the Objective-C porting standpoint. It's also a good idea to obey the naming conventions of the destination language (e.g. "CData" instead of "c_data" for a class name) when porting.
Of course, the C# code never obeyed the source language's conventions (it goes far beyond naming). :(
Thanks. I originally excluded some of these conventions to make it easier to highlight the essential porting differences. But it's worth having a nice clean version to highlight. I will mention that in some instances it is easier to port code that breaks conventions if it allows you to avoid having to do global renaming or refactoring. I don't know if that applied in this situation - but I suspect the OP is in a better position to decide that.
2

The 4th line is a parameterless constructor and the 5th line is a parameterfull constructor.

Comments

2

The first c_data is a default no-args constructor which initialises the structure's fields to default values (value -> 0.0, label -> 0, ID -> 0) and the second c_data is a constructor which sets the value field of the instance to the passed-in parameter val and the other fields to their default values. What I've described is how those two constructor calls initialise the instance.

Comments

1

4th and 5th are constructors that are used to initialize the instance of c_data when you new up one.

Comments

1

The fourth is defining a constructor for the class which takes no parameters and has no actions, and the fifth is defining a constructor for the class which takes as a parameter a double value and which sets the class-internal member variable value to the passed value val.

Comments

1

The 4th and 5th lines are both constructors.

The 4th line one is the "default" constructor, which in this case does not initialize any variables.

The constructor on the 5th line sets the variable named value to the parameter passed in.

Comments

0

If I may, it is rather like the having both the following methods in an Objective-C class:

  • (id)init;
  • (id)initWithNumber:(NSNumber *)number;

Constructors and initializers are analogues, they just look a little different.

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.