> On 4 Feb 2015, at 13:27, Roland King <r...@rols.org> wrote: > > If I have an observation pattern which is set up, and the previous one torn > down, in setXXX:(id)xxx like you do then my dealloc usually goes > > [ self setXXX:nil ] > > which both removes the observers and sets the property to nil so it doesn’t > happen again. > > Your problem here seems to be that you’ve tied the property to the observers > in the set, but you are removing the observers without nil’ing the property > in dealloc, thus leaving yourself open to another setter getting called. Thanks.
That approach does work in this case. I don’t particularly like it in general because (in the more generic NSViewController case) it calls back into a core method generally used to help setup an instance. Calling this in a habitual sense from -dealloc feels sort of wrong! > >> >> Crucially I find that in this case after my subclass -dealloc the superclass >> -dealloc calls -setObjectValue : nil which causes observation warnings to be >> issued (I always try and clear these types of issues because at the very >> least they mask real problems) as _objectValue will still be non nil and >> [self removeObservers] gets called again. >> >> Is it normal for superclasses to message during dealloc? I would still like to know what people’s expectations are here. Thanks J _______________________________________________ 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
