On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Kyle Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Michael Ash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think you're getting the point yourself. The reason he's > > returning NO is because his unarchiving fails, and it shouldn't fail. > > Certainly the code *should* set the error (if outError is non-nil) but > > this is a secondary problem, as that code path shouldn't even happen. > > But how useful can the console log be in fixing *this* problem if one > is knowingly causing Cocoa to send messages to what amounts to a > random pointer? When presented with a glaring and easily-fixable bug > that could obstruct fixing another, doesn't it make sense to fix it > first rather than continue to attempt to figure out the more > complicated bug?
Nothing is being obstructed. The logged errors happen after the primary problem occurs. If the primary problem were logging errors, they would appear before the ones that are caused by the lack of an error assignment. If nothing appears there, then nothing is being logged. It certainly makes sense to fix this problem. An easy bug should always be fixed when the opportunity arises. But it's not hurting efforts to fix the larger problem as it stands. Mike _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) 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]
