FROM : Stuart Malin
DATE : Tue Mar 11 23:49:07 2008
Thanks everybody who replied.
From the conversation, I now understand why the two line version
didn't have the compiler warning while the one line version did: once
the +alloc was assigned to an ivar, the compiler then knew which of
the multiple -init methods to use. I thought I was adding value with
my approach, but I know see the troubles I was causing... Enough said.
On Mar 11, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Mike Abdullah wrote:
> Well because you simply cannot do this. Somehow every single class
> would have to declare their own version of the +alloc method that
> returns an object of their specific type. Do you really want the
> hassle of having to do that every single time you create a
> subclass? This is not something that can be changed in the
> framework, but would have to be a change to the language/runtime.
DATE : Tue Mar 11 23:49:07 2008
Thanks everybody who replied.
From the conversation, I now understand why the two line version
didn't have the compiler warning while the one line version did: once
the +alloc was assigned to an ivar, the compiler then knew which of
the multiple -init methods to use. I thought I was adding value with
my approach, but I know see the troubles I was causing... Enough said.
On Mar 11, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Mike Abdullah wrote:
> Well because you simply cannot do this. Somehow every single class
> would have to declare their own version of the +alloc method that
> returns an object of their specific type. Do you really want the
> hassle of having to do that every single time you create a
> subclass? This is not something that can be changed in the
> framework, but would have to be a change to the language/runtime.






Cocoa mail archive

