And, as long as we're on the topic... who can name the only other
exceptional case for the "release only if you alloc,new, copy or
retain" rule? (It's pretty old-school...)
How about if you're implementing an initializer for a class cluster
that decides, perhaps based on parameters, that it wants to return
an instance of a subclass instead of self?
Ooh, good one. Not the one I was thinking of, but absolutely. In
this case you're basically fulfilling the contract of the +alloc that
came before. The caller of -init had a reference on thge object they
just +alloc'd, so if you're going to replace it (whether with a
subclass, a uniqued instance, or whatever) you need the replacement to
be similarly referenced (and you need to release the original "self".)
The one I was thinking of is more of an edge case, a straight-up
exception to the rule... it is:
-[NSCoder decodeValuesOfObjCTypes:, ...]
(But not it's singular variant, oddly enough.)
If you decode objects from a coder this way, they come out with a
reference. Not a common method and it has no counterpart in the new,
preferred, keyed NSCoder protocol.
Mike Ferris
_______________________________________________
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]
