On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Remco Poelstra <re...@beryllium.net> wrote:
> Ah, I see. I hoped it was 'the new way to go'. I like to more than checking
> for nil, but I might be a bit lazy :)
Checking for nil and assigning to self should be reflexes. You can
combine the two if you like. Whenever I write an -init method, I
always follow the same pattern. I don't even need to think about it:
- (id)init {
if (!(self = [super init]))
return nil;
// do other initialization
return self;
}
To my brain, it might as well be required syntax.
--Kyle Sluder
_______________________________________________
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 arch...@mail-archive.com
