On Feb 15, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Feb 15, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Gregory Weston wrote:
Keith Duncan wrote:
As far as I understand, [Foo new] is exactly equivalent to [[Foo
alloc] init]
Correct.
Incorrect. Based on the documentation new (by default) does setup
work analogous to alloc and then invokes init before returning the
object. It does not actually use the alloc method, though, which
means it's entirely possible for new to not be equivalent to an
alloc/init pair.
Possible? Sure. But one would be mighty optimistic to make such
a subtle distinction.
Mighty optimistic? I'd think "appropriately pessimistic" would be a
better description.
On Leopard, +new is implemented as return [[self alloc] init]; It
is equivalent unless a subclass overrides, which is exceedingly
unlikely.
Where's the documentation that says that's reliable?
Without that guarantee, there's a different between saying "this
statement accurately describes all current implementations" and "this
statement is correct." It is not correct in general to say that "[Foo
new] is exactly equivalent to [[Foo alloc] init]." Those are the kind
of assumptions that burn you after you've forgotten you made them in
the first place.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
