FROM : Bill Bumgarner
DATE : Fri Feb 15 21:57:32 2008
On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Adam P Jenkins wrote:
> As far as I understand, [Foo new] is exactly equivalent to [[Foo
> alloc] init], unless Foo has overridden +new to do something else.
> I've never understood why most example code shows [[Foo alloc] init]
> when [Foo new] is shorter, and I always just use +new. Is there any
> reason not to do that?_______________________________________________
Nope -- no reason at all. Works fine and is 100% equivalent as you
said.
b.bum
DATE : Fri Feb 15 21:57:32 2008
On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Adam P Jenkins wrote:
> As far as I understand, [Foo new] is exactly equivalent to [[Foo
> alloc] init], unless Foo has overridden +new to do something else.
> I've never understood why most example code shows [[Foo alloc] init]
> when [Foo new] is shorter, and I always just use +new. Is there any
> reason not to do that?_______________________________________________
Nope -- no reason at all. Works fine and is 100% equivalent as you
said.
b.bum






Cocoa mail archive

