332

Is it possible to have blocks as properties using the standard property syntax?

Are there any changes for ARC?

8
  • 1
    Well, because it would be very in handy. I wouldn't need to know what it is as long as I have the syntax right and it behaves like an NSObject.
    – gurghet
    Commented Oct 14, 2010 at 17:09
  • 5
    If you don't know what it is, how do you know that it would be very handy? Commented Oct 14, 2010 at 17:14
  • 5
    You shouldn't use them If you dont know what they are :) Commented Oct 14, 2010 at 18:30
  • 5
    @Moshe here are some reasons that come to mind. Blocks are easier to implement than a full delegate class, blocks are lightweight, and you have access to variables that are in the context of that block. Event Callbacks can be done effectively using blocks (cocos2d uses them almost exclusively). Commented Feb 3, 2012 at 21:40
  • 3
    Not completely related, but since some of the comments complain about "ugly" block syntax, here is a great article that derives the syntax from first principles: nilsou.com/blog/2013/08/21/objective-c-blocks-syntax Commented Sep 24, 2013 at 16:28

8 Answers 8

321
@property (nonatomic, copy) void (^simpleBlock)(void);
@property (nonatomic, copy) BOOL (^blockWithParamter)(NSString *input);

If you are going to be repeating the same block in several places use a type def

typedef void(^MyCompletionBlock)(BOOL success, NSError *error);
@property (nonatomic) MyCompletionBlock completion;
19
  • 3
    With xCode 4.4 or newer you dont need to synthesize. That will make it even more concise. Apple Doc
    – Eric
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 4:28
  • wow, I didn't know that, thanks! ... Although I often do @synthesize myProp = _myProp
    – Robert
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 8:04
  • 8
    @Robert: You are in luck again, because without putting @synthesize the default is what you are doing @synthesize name = _name; stackoverflow.com/a/12119360/1052616
    – Eric
    Commented Nov 12, 2012 at 3:58
  • 1
    @CharlieMonroe - Yes you are probably right, but dont you need a dealloc implementation to nil or release the block property without ARC? (its been a while since I used non-ARC)
    – Robert
    Commented Mar 31, 2013 at 21:58
  • 1
    @imcaptor: Yes, it can cause memory leaks in case you don't release it in dealloc - just like with any other variable. Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 8:59
210

Here's an example of how you would accomplish such a task:

#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
typedef int (^IntBlock)();

@interface myobj : NSObject
{
    IntBlock compare;
}

@property(readwrite, copy) IntBlock compare;

@end

@implementation myobj

@synthesize compare;

- (void)dealloc 
{
   // need to release the block since the property was declared copy. (for heap
   // allocated blocks this prevents a potential leak, for compiler-optimized 
   // stack blocks it is a no-op)
   // Note that for ARC, this is unnecessary, as with all properties, the memory management is handled for you.
   [compare release];
   [super dealloc];
}
@end

int main () {
    @autoreleasepool {
        myobj *ob = [[myobj alloc] init];
        ob.compare = ^
        {
            return rand();
        };
        NSLog(@"%i", ob.compare());
        // if not ARC
        [ob release];
    }

    return 0;
}

Now, the only thing that would need to change if you needed to change the type of compare would be the typedef int (^IntBlock)(). If you need to pass two objects to it, change it to this: typedef int (^IntBlock)(id, id), and change your block to:

^ (id obj1, id obj2)
{
    return rand();
};

EDIT March 12, 2012:

For ARC, there are no specific changes required, as ARC will manage the blocks for you as long as they are defined as copy. You do not need to set the property to nil in your destructor, either.

For more reading, please check out this document: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html

0
162

@property (copy)void

@property (copy)void (^doStuff)(void);

The actual Apple documentation which states precisely what to use:

Apple doco.

Your .h file:

// Here is a block as a property:
//
// Someone passes you a block. You "hold on to it",
// while you do other stuff. Later, you use the block.
//
// The property 'doStuff' will hold the incoming block.

@property (copy)void (^doStuff)(void);

// Here's a method in your class.
// When someone CALLS this method, they PASS IN a block of code,
// which they want to be performed after the method is finished.

-(void)doSomethingAndThenDoThis:(void(^)(void))pleaseDoMeLater;

// We will hold on to that block of code in "doStuff".

Your .m file:

 -(void)doSomethingAndThenDoThis:(void(^)(void))pleaseDoMeLater
    {
    // Regarding the incoming block of code, save it for later:
    self.doStuff = pleaseDoMeLater;
  
    // Now do other processing, which could follow various paths,
    // involve delays, and so on. Then after everything:
    [self _alldone];
    }

-(void)_alldone
    {
    NSLog(@"Processing finished, running the completion block.");
    // Here's how to run the block:
    if ( self.doStuff != nil )
       self.doStuff();
    }

Beware of out-of-date example code.

With modern (2014+) systems this is the correct and documented approach.

3
  • Maybe you should also say, that now ( 2016 ) it's ok to use strong instead of copy?
    – Nike Kov
    Commented Oct 11, 2016 at 14:44
  • Can you explain why the property shouldn't be nonatomic unlike best practices for most other cases using properties? Commented Nov 15, 2016 at 22:30
  • 1
    WorkingwithBlocks.html from Apple "You should specify copy as the property attribute, because..."
    – Fattie
    Commented Nov 15, 2016 at 22:43
22

For posterity / completeness's sake… Here are two FULL examples of how to implement this ridiculously versatile "way of doing things". @Robert's answer is blissfully concise and correct, but here I want to also show ways to actually "define" the blocks.

@interface       ReusableClass : NSObject
@property (nonatomic,copy) CALayer*(^layerFromArray)(NSArray*);
@end

@implementation  ResusableClass
static  NSString const * privateScope = @"Touch my monkey.";

- (CALayer*(^)(NSArray*)) layerFromArray { 
     return ^CALayer*(NSArray* array){
        CALayer *returnLayer = CALayer.layer
        for (id thing in array) {
            [returnLayer doSomethingCrazy];
            [returnLayer setValue:privateScope
                         forKey:@"anticsAndShenanigans"];
        }
        return list;
    };
}
@end

Silly? Yes. Useful? Hells yeah. Here is a different, "more atomic" way of setting the property.. and a class that is ridiculously useful…

@interface      CALayoutDelegator : NSObject
@property (nonatomic,strong) void(^layoutBlock)(CALayer*);
@end

@implementation CALayoutDelegator
- (id) init { 
   return self = super.init ? 
         [self setLayoutBlock: ^(CALayer*layer){
          for (CALayer* sub in layer.sublayers)
            [sub someDefaultLayoutRoutine];
         }], self : nil;
}
- (void) layoutSublayersOfLayer:(CALayer*)layer {
   self.layoutBlock ? self.layoutBlock(layer) : nil;
}   
@end

This illustrates setting the block property via the accessor (albeit inside init, a debatably dicey practice..) vs the first example's "nonatomic" "getter" mechanism. In either case… the "hardcoded" implementations can always be overwritten, per instance.. a lá..

CALayoutDelegator *littleHelper = CALayoutDelegator.new;
littleHelper.layoutBlock = ^(CALayer*layer){
  [layer.sublayers do:^(id sub){ [sub somethingElseEntirely]; }];
};
someLayer.layoutManager = littleHelper;

Also.. if you want to add a block property in a category... say you want to use a Block instead of some old-school target / action "action"... You can just use associated values to, well.. associate the blocks.

typedef    void(^NSControlActionBlock)(NSControl*); 
@interface       NSControl            (ActionBlocks)
@property (copy) NSControlActionBlock  actionBlock;    @end
@implementation  NSControl            (ActionBlocks)

- (NSControlActionBlock) actionBlock { 
    // use the "getter" method's selector to store/retrieve the block!
    return  objc_getAssociatedObject(self, _cmd); 
} 
- (void) setActionBlock:(NSControlActionBlock)ab {

    objc_setAssociatedObject( // save (copy) the block associatively, as categories can't synthesize Ivars.
    self, @selector(actionBlock),ab ,OBJC_ASSOCIATION_COPY);
    self.target = self;                  // set self as target (where you call the block)
    self.action = @selector(doItYourself); // this is where it's called.
}
- (void) doItYourself {

    if (self.actionBlock && self.target == self) self.actionBlock(self);
}
@end

Now, when you make a button, you don't have to set up some IBAction drama.. Just associate the work to be done at creation...

_button.actionBlock = ^(NSControl*thisButton){ 

     [doc open]; [thisButton setEnabled:NO]; 
};

This pattern can be applied OVER and OVER to Cocoa API's. Use properties to bring the relevant parts of your code closer together, eliminate convoluted delegation paradigms, and leverage the power of objects beyond that of just acting as dumb "containers".

2
  • Alex, great Associated example. You know, I'm wondering about the nonatomic. Thoughts?
    – Fattie
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 9:12
  • 2
    It's very rare that "atomic" would be the right thing to do for a property. It would be a very strange thing to set a block property in one thread and read it in another thread at the same time, or to set the block property simultaneously from multiple threads. So the cost of "atomic" vs. "nonatomic" doesn't give you any real advantages.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Mar 30, 2014 at 21:13
8

Of course you could use blocks as properties. But make sure they are declared as @property(copy). For example:

typedef void(^TestBlock)(void);

@interface SecondViewController : UIViewController
@property (nonatomic, copy) TestBlock block;
@end

In MRC, blocks capturing context variables are allocated in stack; they will be released when the stack frame is destroyed. If they are copied, a new block will be allocated in heap, which can be executed later on after the stack frame is poped.

1
6

Disclamer

This is not intended to be "the good answer", as this question ask explicitly for ObjectiveC. As Apple introduced Swift at the WWDC14, I'd like to share the different ways to use block (or closures) in Swift.

Hello, Swift

You have many ways offered to pass a block equivalent to function in Swift.

I found three.

To understand this I suggest you to test in playground this little piece of code.

func test(function:String -> String) -> String
{
    return function("test")
}

func funcStyle(s:String) -> String
{
    return "FUNC__" + s + "__FUNC"
}
let resultFunc = test(funcStyle)

let blockStyle:(String) -> String = {s in return "BLOCK__" + s + "__BLOCK"}
let resultBlock = test(blockStyle)

let resultAnon = test({(s:String) -> String in return "ANON_" + s + "__ANON" })


println(resultFunc)
println(resultBlock)
println(resultAnon)

Swift, optimized for closures

As Swift is optimized for asynchronous development, Apple worked more on closures. The first is that function signature can be inferred so you don't have to rewrite it.

Access params by numbers

let resultShortAnon = test({return "ANON_" + $0 + "__ANON" })

Params inference with naming

let resultShortAnon2 = test({myParam in return "ANON_" + myParam + "__ANON" })

Trailing Closure

This special case works only if the block is the last argument, it's called trailing closure

Here is an example (merged with inferred signature to show Swift power)

let resultTrailingClosure = test { return "TRAILCLOS_" + $0 + "__TRAILCLOS" }

Finally:

Using all this power what I'd do is mixing trailing closure and type inference (with naming for readability)

PFFacebookUtils.logInWithPermissions(permissions) {
    user, error in
    if (!user) {
        println("Uh oh. The user cancelled the Facebook login.")
    } else if (user.isNew) {
        println("User signed up and logged in through Facebook!")
    } else {
        println("User logged in through Facebook!")
    }
}
0
-1

Hello, Swift

Complementing what @Francescu answered.

Adding extra parameters:

func test(function:String -> String, param1:String, param2:String) -> String
{
    return function("test"+param1 + param2)
}

func funcStyle(s:String) -> String
{
    return "FUNC__" + s + "__FUNC"
}
let resultFunc = test(funcStyle, "parameter 1", "parameter 2")

let blockStyle:(String) -> String = {s in return "BLOCK__" + s + "__BLOCK"}
let resultBlock = test(blockStyle, "parameter 1", "parameter 2")

let resultAnon = test({(s:String) -> String in return "ANON_" + s + "__ANON" }, "parameter 1", "parameter 2")


println(resultFunc)
println(resultBlock)
println(resultAnon)
0
-4

You can follow the format below and can use the testingObjectiveCBlock property in the class.

typedef void (^testingObjectiveCBlock)(NSString *errorMsg);

@interface MyClass : NSObject
@property (nonatomic, strong) testingObjectiveCBlock testingObjectiveCBlock;
@end

For more info have a look here

1
  • 2
    Does this answer really add anything more to the other answers already provided? Commented Jan 30, 2014 at 1:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.