On Mar 19, 2012, at 11:48 , Matt Neuburg wrote: > As long as we're just dreaming up our own linguistic world, I'd suggest that > instead of "owning" we say "owning-copying". I've never liked the way "copy" > implies "retain". The word "retain" tells you something very important, > namely that this thing has an elevated retain count and needs release later. > It's not very nice to expect a beginner to know that "copy" *also* means > that. If you're copying, you're taking ownership, and "owning-copying" would > remind you of that. m.
"you" == "the class implementor"?? Because I don't think the *client* cares about the ownership of the copy that's made. You're also pointing out a larger area of secondary difficulty: the attributes on the @property declaration don't ensure that they're honored by the implementation. I have to confess I write non-atomic setters all the time, but I never bother to declare the @property as nonatomic. That's at least in part because I almost never rely on atomicity at the property level, in code I write or frameworks I use, so I don't have to believe the declaration regarding that attribute anyway. Similarly, when writing a setter for a "copy" property, I'd say it's sometimes harder to remember to do the copy at all, than to remember the correct memory management. _______________________________________________ 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
