On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Torsten Curdt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Think of it like the compiler generates the ivars from the property >>> definitions. So the ivar would be indeed explicit ivars - just not >>> defined as such in the classic way. >> >> Doesn't matter. The subclass still needs to know the size of its superclass >> so that it generate the proper ivar offsets. If the ivar declarations are >> not visible to the compiler, it cannot know this information. > > But there is the property declaration where it can derive that information > from.
No it can't. @property only says "I have methods named -foo and -setFoo:". It implies absolutely nothing about storage. > > FWIW I check on the llvm IRC channel and the response was "I wouldn't > be surprised if there are annoying edge cases, but offhand I don't see > any reason it couldn't be done." If it could've been done, they would have done it. The fragile base class problem is a well-understood aspect of language design, and the compiler team is full of smart people. --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]
