On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only unusual thing Cocoa does with it is allow
multiple owners.
I'm confused by this statement. Take that simple C++ String class again.
If you have:
String a = aaa;
String b = a;
String c = a;
...don't
On 19.07.2008, at 05:52, Andy Lee wrote:
It's only when the ownership metaphor was applied that I questioned
whether the abstraction holds up.
It's a metaphor, an abstraction. As those things go, they're bound
to break down at some point.
ownership works, because it's a term already
On 19.07.2008, at 05:52, Andy Lee wrote:
I'm confused by this statement. Take that simple C++ String class
again. If you have:
String a = aaa;
String b = a;
String c = a;
...don't a, b, and c all own the underlying char buffer? (And yes,
a char buffer isn't an object, but that's
On Jul 19, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Uli Kusterer wrote:
On 19.07.2008, at 05:52, Andy Lee wrote:
It's only when the ownership metaphor was applied that I questioned
whether the abstraction holds up.
It's a metaphor, an abstraction. As those things go, they're bound
to break down at some point.
On Jul 19, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Uli Kusterer wrote:
On 19.07.2008, at 05:52, Andy Lee wrote:
I'm confused by this statement. Take that simple C++ String class
again. If you have:
String a = aaa;
String b = a;
String c = a;
...don't a, b, and c all own the underlying char buffer? (And
Hi!
I'm a rookie with Cocoa development, please excuse if this question is
stupid, but I'm struck with memory management (an even Aaron's book
doesn't help me):
In a method I use a (temporary) dictionary vAttributes to read an
object from an instance variable vColors (a dictionary, too):
7/18/08 7:48 AM, also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In a method I use a (temporary) dictionary vAttributes to read an
object from an instance variable vColors (a dictionary, too):
- (NSString *)descriptionByColorCode:(int)colorCode
{
NSMutableDictionary *vAttributes = [[NSMutableDictionary
In the code you provide, the first line allocates a brand new
dictionary and assigns it to vAttributes.
In the next line, you reassign vAttributes to the contents of your
iVar dictionary. Nothing points to that alloc'd dictionary in the
first line anymore.
Since vAttributes now points to
Robert,
Am 18.07.2008 um 16:25 schrieb Robert Martin:
In the next line, you reassign vAttributes to the contents of your
iVar dictionary. Nothing points to that alloc'd dictionary in the
first line anymore.
Since vAttributes now points to an autoreleased dictionary,
attempting to
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Matthias Arndt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert,
Am 18.07.2008 um 16:25 schrieb Robert Martin:
In the next line, you reassign vAttributes to the contents of your iVar
dictionary. Nothing points to that alloc'd dictionary in the first line
anymore.
Since
Hi!
I'm a rookie with Cocoa development, please excuse if this question is
stupid, but I'm struck with memory management (an even Aaron's book
doesn't help me):
In a method I use a (temporary) dictionary vAttributes to read an
object from an instance variable vColors (a dictionary, too):
Am 18.07.2008 um 16:42 schrieb Shawn Erickson:
This is the wrong thing to take away from this email thread. Please
review the following and ask questions if you don't understand any
aspect of it.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Shawn Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Matthias Arndt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert,
Am 18.07.2008 um 16:25 schrieb Robert Martin:
In the next line, you reassign vAttributes to the contents of your iVar
dictionary.
On Jul 18, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
I should more clearly note that objectForKey: is not returning an
autoreleased object. Also even if it did it would be an
implementation detail (unless documented in the API docs).
It is returning a reference to an object that the vColors
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Andy Lee wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
I should more clearly note that objectForKey: is not returning an
autoreleased object. Also even if it did it would be an
implementation detail (unless documented in the API docs).
It is returning
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Andy Lee wrote:
Unless Apple defines another adjective for this purpose, it seems to
me that autoreleased is a reasonable shorthand for you must
retain it if you want it to stick around, or you *may* have a
dangling pointer. Similarly, retained is a reasonable
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
I should more clearly note that objectForKey: is not returning an
autoreleased object. Also even if it did it would be an
implementation detail (unless documented in the API
On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:17 PM, mmalc crawford wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Andy Lee wrote:
Unless Apple defines another adjective for this purpose, it seems
to me that autoreleased is a reasonable shorthand for you must
retain it if you want it to stick around, or you *may* have a
On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lee wrote:
I don't see the difference from the caller's point of view.
There isn't any, and that was not MMalcs point. His point was that you
were using the term autoreleased incorrectly.
j o a r
___
On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless Apple defines another adjective for this purpose, it seems
to me that
autoreleased is a reasonable shorthand for you must retain it if
you want
it to stick around, or
On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:59 PM, j o a r wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lee wrote:
I don't see the difference from the caller's point of view.
There isn't any, and that was not MMalcs point. His point was that
you were using the term autoreleased incorrectly.
I don't think I have
On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lee wrote:
Autoreleased is inaccurate and is not a proper shorthand for you
must retain it if you want it to stick around.
To understand why, consider two possible implementations of a get
accessor:
- (NSString *)name {
return name;
}
- (NSString
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
I don't see any reason to use autoreleased in a situation where the
object in question has not, in fact, been sent the autorelease
method. It's just confusing.
Yes, you would have to acknowledge that you don't know whether
autorelease has in
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:19 PM, mmalc crawford wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lee wrote:
Autoreleased is inaccurate and is not a proper shorthand for
you must retain it if you want it to stick around.
To understand why, consider two possible implementations of a get
accessor:
-
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Andy Lee wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:19 PM, mmalc crawford wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lee wrote:
NSString *name = [aPerson name];
[aPerson setName:@Fido];
NSLog(@Old name: %@, name);
And calling the return value from -name autoreleased would
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Hamish Allan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you use for adjectives -- owned and unowned?
How about retained and unretained? As in: this method returns an
unretained object.
Unfortunately, there's no such
In my office we usually call objects returned directly without an
autorelease as short returned and an retain-autoreleased object as
pooled. Though these sound more slang than something that could be
official.
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Andy Lee wrote:
Unfortunately, there's no such
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
The better term already exists: own. As in, you own the return
value or you do not own the return value. This tells you everything
you need to know.
Well, as I said I don't
On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
The better term already exists: own. As in, you own the return
value or you do not own the return value. This tells you
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you use for adjectives -- owned and unowned?
How about retained and unretained? As in: this method returns an
unretained object.
Hamish
___
Cocoa-dev mailing list
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Hamish Allan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you use for adjectives -- owned and unowned?
How about retained and unretained? As in: this
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
The better term already exists: own. As in, you own the
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Hamish Allan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you use for adjectives -- owned and unowned?
How about retained and unretained? As in: this method returns an
unretained object.
How about dependent and
On Jul 18, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Andy Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on how odd the objections are.
Corner case or not, we must understand that retains, wherever they
occur,
must be balanced with releases. Therefore
34 matches
Mail list logo
