On 6/25/2013 8:08 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 11:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/2013 6:31 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> And finally, there's nothing unsafe with autorelease pools as long as you
don't keep an unretained reference to an autoreleased object when the pool drains.
>> Well, that's exactly the issue - an escaping reference.
>>
> Read the next sentence after your quote though:
>
> "Making sure you have no unretained reference is ARC's job, so with ARC it
should not be no problem."
>
> So with ARC, it's not unsafe. I think that was the ultimate point.
Yes, I read the next sentence. What it means to me is that autorelease pools add
nothing when ARC is implemented - no optimizations, either. Either that or I
don't understand how ARC figures out that there are no escaping references
without doing things like runtime checks.
