Re: In dealloc(): ref @property, Can I use "<property object> = nil; " vs "[<property object> release]; " ?
Re: In dealloc(): ref @property, Can I use "<property object> = nil; " vs "[<property object> release]; " ?
- Subject: Re: In dealloc(): ref @property, Can I use "<property object> = nil; " vs "[<property object> release]; " ?
- From: Ron Lue-Sang <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:06:04 -0700
On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Lee, Frederick wrote:
Assuming the following:
@property(retain) myVar;
...
@synthesize myVar;
...
-(void) dealloc {
// Can I use:
self.myVar = nil;
// versus:
[myVar release]; // ?
}
I've seen examples of using [myVar release]. But doesn't setting
myVar
= nil does the same thing?
Which is the preferred way?
I prefer doing [myVar release]. Mainly because I don't want setMyVar
getting called during dealloc. And by this time there *shouldn't* be
any KVO observers for myVar (assuming the property was observed at all
before).
Yea yea – you've done @synthesize here so we know that the setter
doesn't do any custom work. But since we're in dealloc, we are –
obviously – not running under GC. Under refcounting, if you didn't
declare your property nonatomic, you're gonna take a lock during
dealloc to do setMyVar:nil.
--------------------------
RONZILLA
_______________________________________________
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