This (void *)1091 business seems highly dangerous to me. After all,
what prevents somebody else from using 1091 too? If everybody uses a
pointer value that's guaranteed to be unique (like a unique string
literal) then you know you're safe.
It really just needs to be unique in your class hierarchy, right?
But, yeah, it still seems dangerous. I mean, what number do you start
using, and what if your class hierarchy changes?
I'm liking Ron's way, because that's guaranteed to be a unique pointer
value. I still like the static string, too, but it sounds like in
order to ensure uniqueness of the string within a class hierarchy, it
may be a good idea to put the class name in there. Two classes using
static @"Property Context" should still be unique, unless the linker
does some cross-module string literal optimization so that there's
only a single @"Property Context" string literal in the entire
binary. I don't think it does now, but perhaps with LLVM it'll do
more aggressive optimizations like this.
-Dave
_______________________________________________
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
