Re: Autorelease question
Re: Autorelease question
- Subject: Re: Autorelease question
- From: Jens Alfke <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:09:50 -0700
On 3 Apr '08, at 7:50 PM, Dmitry Markman wrote:
1. I read all that documentation, please, enough about that, really
Reading it isn't enough, you have to _understand_ it. I know that
sometimes it can take several readings before something makes sense.
Usually after you've been burned by mistakes, it suddenly becomes
clearer on the next reading :)
2. I should follow the "alloc, new, copy or mutableCopy" rule. I
should note
that I'm talking about creation methods not create/copy/get
methods all of that
notes about looking to the name (what in your name :-)) )
3. but I agree with Adam comment that the rule isn't 100% reliable
and therefore isn't good enough
Err, it's been good enough for me for seven years and counting. I
didn't see Adam say anything about rules not being good enough.
Methods that return objects either "give you a reference" that has to
be released later, or they don't. You can tell from the name of the
methods which ones they are. In the great majority of cases, the
methods you call don't require you to deal with releasing the object.
The fact that there are autorelease pools is mostly an implementation
detail. The fact that an object without 'alloc' or 'copy' in its name
returns an object doesn't mean it autoreleased that object. The object
could be an instance variable belonging to it, for example. It doesn't
matter to you.
—Jens
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
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
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden