On 26.06.2012, at 03:20, Graham Cox wrote:
On 26/06/2012, at 7:42 AM, Greg Parker wrote:
We recommend each file be written for either one or the other, with no
attempt to be ARC-agnostic.
Does this imply that ARC can be adopted gradually?
Yes. ARC (effectively) generates the
Le 26 juin 2012 à 11:24, Uli Kusterer a écrit :
On 26.06.2012, at 03:20, Graham Cox wrote:
On 26/06/2012, at 7:42 AM, Greg Parker wrote:
We recommend each file be written for either one or the other, with no
attempt to be ARC-agnostic.
Does this imply that ARC can be adopted gradually?
On 24.06.2012, at 03:41, Dave DeLong wrote:
#define DD_RETAIN(_o) (_o)
#define DD_RELEASE(_o)
#define DD_AUTORELEASE(_o) (_o)
IIRC GNUstep already has standard-defined RETAIN() macros etc. (When they
added their garbage collector, way before Apple made their attempt at one)
Might be worth
On 24.06.2012, at 05:55, Jerry Krinock wrote:
Why didn't Apple do the same thing for ARC?
Because the whole point of ARC is that you don't have to write retain/release
calls, and thus can't make mistakes in them. Since, once compiled, ARC code is
pretty much identical to manually managed code
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Jerry Krinock je...@ieee.org wrote:
But now I wonder why Apple did not do this, as they did with Garbage
Collection. Methods -retain, -release, and -autorelease are no-ops when GC
is on.
Why didn't Apple do the same thing for ARC?
Objective-C garbage
On 26/06/2012, at 7:42 AM, Greg Parker wrote:
We recommend each file be written for either one or the other, with no
attempt to be ARC-agnostic.
Does this imply that ARC can be adopted gradually?
For example, I have a large project that uses manual memory management. If I
add a new class
Yes, you can do this, because ARC is a compile-time option and files are
compiled individually.
To compile with ARC, you'll need to use the -fobjc-arc flag.
Cheers,
Dave
Sent from Jane
On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:20 PM, Graham Cox graham@bigpond.com wrote:
On 26/06/2012, at 7:42 AM, Greg
Le 24 juin 2012 à 07:18, Roland King a écrit :
On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
On 24/06/2012, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Krinock wrote:
Why didn't Apple do the same thing for ARC?
Because ARC is a compiler technology that inserts -retain, -release
automatically and
I'm curious as to why, when using non-ARC code, the recommendation is to opt
out the file with -fobjc-arc.
How about doing something like this…
#ifndef HEY_ARC_IS_IN_USE
[foo retain] ;
#endif
This way the file is fixed once and for all, and I don't have to be setting
-fobjc-arc every time
Yep, you can do this. The #if you're looking for is:
#if __has_feature(objc_arc)
...
#endif
You can just scatter that everywhere in code, or you could do something like
this:
#if __has_feature(objc_arc)
#define DD_RETAIN(_o) (_o)
#define DD_RELEASE(_o)
#define DD_AUTORELEASE(_o) (_o)
On 2012 Jun 23, at 18:41, Dave DeLong wrote:
Yep, you can do this…
Very good, Dave. I'm doing it.
But now I wonder why Apple did not do this, as they did with Garbage
Collection. Methods -retain, -release, and -autorelease are no-ops when GC is
on.
Why didn't Apple do the same thing for
On 24/06/2012, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Krinock wrote:
Why didn't Apple do the same thing for ARC?
Because ARC is a compiler technology that inserts -retain, -release
automatically and silently into your code as it is compiled. The methods have
to be there in order for memory management to work at
On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
On 24/06/2012, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Krinock wrote:
Why didn't Apple do the same thing for ARC?
Because ARC is a compiler technology that inserts -retain, -release
automatically and silently into your code as it is compiled. The methods
13 matches
Mail list logo
