On 12 Mar 2013, at 21:34, Graham Cox wrote:
On 13/03/2013, at 6:53 AM, Dave <d...@looktowindward.com> wrote:
If that is the case, then how do you signal to the compiler/
analyzer that you are returning a retained object?
In general you shouldn't return a retained object (unless it's
temporarily retained and will be autoreleased of course)
Why? Where does it say this? And Autorelease is evil and should never
be used if it can be avoided!
. If you are routinely doing this then your design is flawed. The
reason it's hard to signal to the compiler that you're returning a
retained object is that you shouldn't be doing it. When you have to
do it, use the word 'new' in the method.
How many years experience do you have writing applications and OS
level software? I've been doing it since that late 70's. And, in all
that time, I have never (well rarely it's a long time!) heard a more
silly statement then " If you are routinely doing this then your
design is flawed." ("this" meaning returning a retained object). In
that case Unix, MacOS X and most software on the market has a flawed
design according to this logic! I've never seen anything about this
written down in any Apple document. In fact see below - Apple seems
to disagree with you!
The reason it's hard to signal to the compiler that you're
returning a retained object is that you shouldn't be doing it. When
you have to do it, use the word 'new' in the method.
So, the design is flawed because it's hard to signal to the compiler
that you are retuning a retain object? Do you realize how silly that
sounds? How can a compiler option/feature affect a design? Also, are
you saying that ARC is a flawed design? With ARC you do nothing BUT
return retained objects!
So lets say we have a number of fairly complex (non ARC) iPad
Applications that work wonderfully with no memory leaks. The code is
well written, commented and easy to understand and maintain, but
these Apps contained methods that routinely return retained objects.
Would you then say these apps have a "Flawed Design" simply for this
reason?
The fact of the matter is that this *is* routinely done in many
commercial applications that I have worked on and by many developers,
both on the Mac and iOS. Originally, I don't think there was a "new"
prefix, so older code has lots of methods beginning with "alloc". The
"new" was added later to make it easier to signal to the compiler the
the method is returning a retained object. Most developers I worked
with think that using "new" as a prefix when returning a retained
object.
Besides all this, it isn't hard to signal to the compiler you are
returning a retained object, you just prefix the name with "new",
"alloc", "retain" etc. As per:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#related-result-types
Unless there is another prefix to use, they I am going to continue
ignore it too!
Again, no offence intended but when a person doesn't follow a rule
because they think it doesn't apply to them, it's just a sign of
inexperience and/or lack of understanding. Sorry, but there it is.
I don't think the rule doesn't apply to just "me", I think it's
doesn't apply to *anyone* and that it either isn't a rule and you are
mistaken or if it is a rule, it's a stupid one and I don't follow
stupid rules.
The only reason you have given me is that this is bad is that "hard
to signal to the compiler that you're returning a retained object"
but it isn't hard, you just prefix with "new". If there are other
reasons, then please do let me know and I will consider what you say,
but so far you've not given one reference to an Apple doc that
categorically states this and no real reason why its bad apart from
it's hard to signal the compiler what you are doing, which is isn't!
So, pardon me if I take no notice of what you say!
There are loads of "rules" in life that no one pays any attention to!
There are load of rules that Apple have made that are routinely
broken. A few that spring to mind are, using "_" in iVar names, have
getters/setters with non-standard names,
For instance, there is a law in England that dates back hundreds of
year that states that a Male may urinate on the public highway as
long as he alerts people to this fact uses the offside of his cab to
shield passers by from this unsightly spectacle! How many men do you
hear announcing in Oxford street that that are going to Urinate and
then doing it against the offside of their car! Not Many!!!!!
There is another that says perambulated baby carriages much be
wheeled off the pavement and on the road! How many people do you see
wheeling their offspring along the slow lane side of the A40? Not many.
However, according to you, these "rules" must be obeyed! So next time
you need to relieve yourself while wheeling your baby buggy along a
public highway, just announce the fact that you are about to urinate
and off you go! Don't worry, the "rule" will protect you from arrest
for indecent exposure and the other "rule" is just bound to stop the
20 Ton Truck dead in it's tracks before it wipes out your buggy!
I would say that anyone that blindly follows rules without question
is an idiot.
All the Best
Dave
_______________________________________________
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
