On 8 Dec 2008, at 18:53, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am aware of why the assertion is never applied but the thread I
referenced was several years old and I was hoping that there had
been some progress on this.
Your use of the word "progress" implies that something is broken and
needs to be fixed. That is not the case.
I cannot see the harm in requesting if anyone has new insights into
old issues.
I was using this assertion (written some time ago in ignorance) and
wasted an afternoon tracking down the fact that it didn't work.
It does "work" - it does the job it's designed to do.
Maybe the only solution is to set up an exception handler.
No, the solution is to not try to test for mutability. Such tests
don't work because they're not *supposed* to work - code that tries
to do such things is broken as designed. And no, it's not an
"ethical" issue. Writing broken code isn't a question of good and
evil, it's simply a question of what works and doesn't work.
I would disagree. I see nothing wrong with the logically necessity of
testing for mutability. It's just a property.
sherm--
Jonathan Mitchell
Central Conscious Unit
http://www.mugginsoft.com
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
