[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette
From: |
Michael Ash |
Subject: |
Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:00:57 -0600 |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE-p20 (i386)) |
In comp.lang.objective-c Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm a little skeptical of Apple's setters doing a -copy by default
> also. It seems to run counter to the whole idea of shared ownership that
> retain/release was designed to support in the first place.
Ah, but the really clever bit is that if you know that your objects are
immutable, the retain/release mechanism lets you implement copy as a
simple retain. Due to this, you should always copy in setters if they take
an NSString, NSArray, etc. If it's mutable then you shouldn't be holding a
reference to the original object anyway (it could change out from under
you at any time) and if it's immutable then you get a very fast "copy"
that doesn't actually do anything.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
- Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Michael Hopkins, 2007/02/17
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Michael Ash, 2007/02/17
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Sherm Pendley, 2007/02/17
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, David Phillip Oster, 2007/02/17
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, David Phillip Oster, 2007/02/17
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Sherm Pendley, 2007/02/17
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette,
Michael Ash <=
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, David Phillip Oster, 2007/02/19
- Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Michael Ash, 2007/02/19
Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Michael Hopkins, 2007/02/17
Re: Alloc/dealloc etiquette, Jens Ayton, 2007/02/19