Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
- Subject: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
- From: William Squires <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:13:18 -0600
This is one of those things that comes from the C background - any non-zero value is true; thus the two statements are equivalent. I prefer the "if (self = [super init])" combined form, myself.
On Feb 24, 2012, at 8:50 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