On Oct 16, 2013, at 21:16 , Keary Suska <xcode-us...@esoteritech.com> wrote:
> "if (self.active)" should never flag a warning, because it is not only > perfectly legal but also not in any way an odd construct. The compiler can't > know that you might not be testing for a nil value, for instance. Some > advocate always having an explicit r-value, e.g. "if (self.active != nil)", > which always makes the intention clear, but it is only a convention one could > use to avoid ambiguity. In your case, this convention might have helped since > implicit pointer conversion is usually flagged. I realize this, which is why I asked for a warning. clang is smart enough to recognize (I think) if something is actually its BOOL type, and I'd settle for this only working in Objective-C++. Maybe that's why it didn't work. I never use the perfectly legitimate but IMO lazy test for nil; I always make it explicit, and I accept this requirement when turning on the warning. Forcing that is much better than missing things like the one I missed. -- Rick
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
