On Mar 8, 2012, at 14:29 , Charles Srstka wrote: > For those two examples, it seems like having the default accessor return an > immutable array via copy would solve the issue.
It wouldn't solve, e.g., the possibly inconsistency between 'array.count' and a subsequent reference, unless it was coded to keep a "consistent" local reference to the copy of the array, in which case you'd want the copy to be explicit in the API so that a reader of the code would be aware, and that would be a non-atomic-level approach anyway. I also wanted to point out that there's another defect in Tamas's code: it needs an explicit atomic 'copy' implementation, and therefore an explicit atomic 'mutableCopy' implementation. And who knows what else … I'm begging ya to forgeddaboudit. The atomicity solution is a fantasy**. You can't solve thread safety at that level. ** However, we don't know the scenario Tamas wrote the code for. It's possible atomicity solved whatever issue he was facing, that wasn't general thread safety. It's also possible he didn't solve anything, but just changed a likely-to-cause-a-crash bug into a impossible-to-crash-but-likely-to-cause-a-rare-and-subtle-but-almost-impossible-to-debug-error bug. _______________________________________________ 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
