• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)


  • Subject: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
  • From: David Rowland <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:29:42 -0800

I usually prefer the more explicit form (of any expression) because it more obviously describes what is happening. That is your second example. However, anyone who works with any variant of C quickly becomes comfortable with the first form, so I consider it quite acceptable.

There is another form you will see,

if (self = [super init])  .....

It compacts the assignment into the boolean. It works, but putting an assignment into a boolean is treading close to the edge of being misleading. Too clever by half, as the British say.

David







On Feb 24, 2012, at 6:50 AM, Oleg Krupnov wrote:

> An interesting question. The following samples are equivalent in terms
> of compiled code, but which one is more correct from the language's
> point of view?
>
> self = [super init];
> if (self)
> {
> }
> return self;
>
> self = [super init];
> if (self != nil)
> {
> }
> return self;
>
> The Xcode samples promote the first variant, but I'm wondering if the
> second one is more correct?
>
> The "nil" is defined as follows (jumped to definition)
>
> #define nil NULL
> #define NULL ((void*)0)
>
> So basically, nil is of type "void*", so the expression "self != nil"
> compares two pointers and the result is "boolean", which is perfect
> for testing in the "if" statement. But the "self" alone is of type
> "pointer" and so when it is tested by the "if" statement, it's
> implicitly cast to the type "boolean".
>
> I also heard that generally speaking NULL is not necessarily always
> equal to 0 on all architectures.
>
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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


References: 
 >[Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil) (From: Oleg Krupnov <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
  • Next by Date: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
  • Previous by thread: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
  • Next by thread: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread