On Thursday, October 25, 2007, at 10:58AM, "Christiaan Hofman" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A question for Mike, hope he sees this. It's related to the execution
>order discussed recently. If in a method arguments are message calls,
>is the order in which these arguments are executed actually
>determined? So if I have something like:
>
>[anObject arg1:[obj1 acceessor1] arg2:[obj2 acceessor2]];
>
>is the order in which -accessor1 and -accessor2 are called determined?
>
>In context, this is relevant when passing arguments to an initializer
>in -initWithCoder:, where the arguments are non-keyed coding calls.
>tyhe order in which the decodeObject: calls are executed is relevant.
>
>- (id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)coder {
> return [self initWithObject:[coder decodeObject] andObject:[coder
>decodeObject]];
>}
If you converted this to call the IMP directly in C, I think you'd end up with
initWithObjectIMP(self, _cmd, coderDecodeObjectIMP(coder, _cmd),
coderDecodeObjectIMP(coder, _cmd));
(pseudo-code...I have to look this up every time I use it). So if arg 2 of
initWithObjectIMP() depends on arg1, I think you'd have to explicitly call it
first. Dr. McCracken can certainly give a more reliable answer than my guess,
though :).
--
Adam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-develop mailing list
Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
