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
dangling pointer." Similarly, "retained" is a reasonable shorthand
for "you must balance the method you just called with a release, or
you'll have a memory leak."
"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 *)name {
return [[name retain] autorelease];
}
I don't see the difference from the caller's point of view. Suppose I
have a silly little class that remembers a person's name. Wouldn't I
have to retain the return value of -name in this init method?
- (id)initWithPerson:(Person *)person
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
_name = [[person name] retain];
}
return self;
}
I don't know how -name is implemented and I don't care, and I don't
know if failing to retain would actually happen to be okay. I only
know that I have to retain it to be *sure* it'll stick around.
If you find cases where memory management is mentioned simply to
state that a method follows the standard rules, please file a bug or
send in feedback using the form in the documentation.
Okay, when I get a chance I'll dig up the methods that tell us a
method returns an autoreleased object.
--Andy
_______________________________________________
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]
