Re: Autorelease Question
Re: Autorelease Question
- Subject: Re: Autorelease Question
- From: Adam Leonard <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:45:48 -0500
Ok, yeah, it could call autorelease, but that would amount to a noop.
My problem with this documentation is that if I created a class that
had a method just like the one you mentioned:
+ (Foo*)foo
{
static Foo *result = nil;
if(!result)
{
// Go freaky...
// Something like this
result = [[Foo alloc] initWithBytes:nil];
[result setThisRetainCountToMax];
}
return result;
}
This documentation would say this code is wrong for two reasons:
- It does not call autorelease
- Except for the first time it is called, it does not "combine
allocation and initialization" (It just returns the singleton instance)
Now, I think this code is totally fine (though for an actual
singleton, you would not set the retain count, but rather just
override -retain, -release-, -autorelease, and -retainCount).
The rules of memory management suggest this code is fine too.
Therefore, I can only conclude that the generalization made by this
page in the documentation (for beginners no less) is simply wrong.
Adam Leonard
On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:33AM, Filip van der Meeren wrote:
Filip van der Meeren
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/xlinterpreter
On 21 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Adam Leonard wrote:
Ok, so my point with all this is that the documentation should not
say that all class factory methods always return autoreleased
objects because that is an implementation detail that (a) is not
required by the memory management rules, (b) is something that the
programmer should not care about, and (c) is not even true in the
case of some methods, including [NSString string]
So I'll file a bug.
You will file a bug ?
I really do not see the bug here...
And for the very last time in this discussion... Where do you people
get the fact that [NSString string] doesn't call autorelease ?
It might call it, and just have its retaincount fixed to a certain
number...
Adam Leonard
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:43AM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Luke Hiesterman <email@hidden
> wrote:
So thinking gets in the way of understanding and not thinking is
the path to
enlightenment?
This is a bogus question. You're thinking incorrectly. There's a
reason the memory management rules don't explicitly call for
things to
be autoreleased. Following good OO principles, you shouldn't care
how
things are memory managed within the framework; just make sure
you're
doing the right thing and following the rules, and everyone's a
winner.
--Kyle Sluder
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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