Re: Retain/Release and Properties clarification
Re: Retain/Release and Properties clarification
- Subject: Re: Retain/Release and Properties clarification
- From: "Glenn L. Austin" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:21:41 -0700
On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Sean McBride wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:23:25 -0500, Charles Srstka said:
>
>> 1. Apple reserves the underscore prefix for their own use, so you could,
>> at least theoretically, clash with a superclass ivar this way, and
>
> In addition to what Kyle replied, I'd just like to point out that prefixing your *methods* with an underscore is a very bad idea, since Apple does reserve such names and a conflict will bite you at runtime possibly affecting the binary compatibility of your app.
>
> IMHO, prefixing your ivars with underscore is a good idea because it's typical convention. A conflict has never happened to me, and would mostly be a compile-time problem. But your point about KVO is a good one! Has anyone been bit by it?
Do I really need to quote the C and C++ standards that states that a leading underscore on a symbol is reserved to the implementation -- in other words 'the implementation' is everything that you're not writing?
The proper way (today) to mark an ivar as private is to use @private. Go ahead and use a leading underscore, but don't be surprised if sometime in the future you are debugging a strange compile-time error. (I've been 'bit' by this a few times in my development).
--
Glenn L. Austin, Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver <><
"Where there's breath, there's hope!"
<http://www.austin-soft.com>
_______________________________________________
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