On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Markus Hanauska <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, it talks about certain*exceptions*, and you are right, one of them is in > fact destroying the parent, so I'm wiling to accept that you must not rely > upon an object to stay alive longer than its parent. However, have you also > read the top paragraph? > > "Cocoa’s ownership policy specifies that received objects should typically > remain valid throughout the scope of the calling method. It should also be > possible to return a received object from the current scope without fear of > it being released. It should not matter to your application that the getter > method of an object returns a cached instance variable or a computed value. > What matters is that the object remains valid for the time you need it." > > This principle is violated by a getter returning an object that is not > retain+autorelease, since even without destroying the parent the returned > object might go away. As pointed out in my other mail:
Yes, but all of this is already well-known. FWIW, nothing about atomic guarantees that the object is returned retained/autoreleased. All of your criticisms are valid, but they're the precise criticisms that ARC addresses. --Kyle Sluder _______________________________________________ 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]
