On Jan 13, 2017, at 09:46 , Sean McBride <s...@rogue-research.com> wrote:
>
> NSObject.h declares:
>
> - (BOOL)isEqual:(id)object;
>
> Note the parameter is not nullable.
Did I miss a change in clang that made the default “not nullable”?? I read the
above declaration as meaning that the nullability is *unspecified*, which
implies that nil is allowed.
It’s also instructive to read the formal definitions of the attributes:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#null-unspecified
<http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#null-unspecified>
which says that nullability might be unspecified in cases where it cannot
properly be determined. Note also that there are different attributes for
saying that passing nil is illegal, and passing nil is undefined behavior.
As far as I’m aware, it’s always been possible to pass nil as the parameter to
“isEqual:”. For that reason, the unannotated method declaration can’t imply a
nullability attribute now, other than “unspecified”, because that would break
reams of existing code.
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
