Re: How do I disable this warning: "local declaration of 'varname' hides instance variable"

FROM : charlie
DATE : Mon Mar 24 06:46:45 2008

"Right... Sorry, I misunderstood. So, you want to continue using your
flawed coding style, but not be warned about it? Got it."

Exactly.  And.. I'm fully admitting that this is a goofy workaround,
but I want to try it nonetheless.




"If it's really important to you, send an incident to DTS and pay them
$195 for the answer. I suspect they'll tell you what we've told you."

I've worked with DTS before, and the vibe is very helpful.  They would
probably remind me of the downside to doing it this way, but if there's
a way to disable that warning, they will tell me what it is.




"Otherwise, I'd ask on the Xcode list which is where this question now
belongs, since you're asking about compiler warnings and not Cocoa
development."


Good point.  I think youre absolutely right.

This will give me a chance to think about how to better phrase my
question too.





- Chuck


On March 24, 2008, Dave Hersey wrote:

> Right... Sorry, I misunderstood. So, you want to continue using your 
> flawed coding style, but not be warned about it? Got it.
>
> If it's really important to you, send an incident to DTS and pay them 
> $195 for the answer. I suspect they'll tell you what we've told you.
>
> Otherwise, I'd ask on the Xcode list which is where this question now 
> belongs, since you're asking about compiler warnings and not Cocoa 
> development.
>
> Out of curiosity, why did you think that adding an underscore to both 
> the local and instance variable names, but still keeping them the same 
> would fix this problem?
>
> - d
> ...who is up to 4 cents now.
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 1:04 AM, charlie wrote:

>>
>> It's not about extra characters I have to type.  It just looks fugly 
>> to me.  It always has.  And I'm not saying this solution is 
>> perfect.  It's ugly too.  Just less ugly to my eyes.  In fact, I may 
>> end up hating it after this project.. but I want to at least try it 
>> once and see how I feel about it afterward.
>>
>> "aController" is exactly what I'm tring to avoid, by the way.  I 
>> want to call it "controller", nothing less, nothing more.  Same goes 
>> for the instance variable.
>>
>> This is why I didn't want to reveal **why** I want to suppress this 
>> warning.  Because everyone feels compelled to pitch in their 2 cents 
>> on this tangent subject which has already been explored and closed 
>> on my end.
>>
>> I could care less what anyone else thinks about this decision.
>>
>> I simply want to know how to suppress the warning.
>>
>> That's it.
>>
>> - Chuck
>>
>> On March 24, 2008, Dave Hersey wrote:
>>

>>>> For example, the above could be rewritten as:
>>>> - (void)setController:(id)newController {
>>>>  if (!controller) return;
>>>>  controller = [newController retain];

>>> I think the if (!controller) check was for the passed-in value, 
>>> not  the instance variable, but there lies the confusion about 
>>> using the  same name for instance variables and parameters like this.
>>> I can't think of any reason NOT to take the time to type a few 
>>> more  characters in that parameter name to make things clear. 
>>> You've already  spent much more time trying to work around the 
>>> warning than fixing it  like Sherm says.
>>> Also, I'm guessing that this method is only called once, because 
>>> otherwise your memory management is hosed. I'd normally do these 
>>> retaining setter methods like this, just out of habit:
>>> - (void) setController: (id) aController
>>> {
>>>     id    tempObject = m_controller;     // m_controller is the instance var.
>>>     m_controller = [aController retain];    // retain before releasing 
>>> the  old value in case m_controller
>>>     [tempObject release];                // and aController are the same.
>>> }
>>> I realize it's a controller in this case so you're probably only 
>>> calling it once, but it's very little extra typing to write it 
>>> safe.  Finally, you don't need to check for nil in your code if 
>>> you're only  calling it once, because [nil retain] == nil.
>>> So, you could write your code like:

>>>> - (void)setController:(id)newController {
>>>>  controller = [newController retain];
>>>> }

>>> - d
>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote:

>>>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59 PM, charlie <<email_removed>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> - (void)setController:(id)controller
>>>> {
>>>> if (!controller)
>>>> {
>>>>  return;
>>>> }
>>>> self->controller = [controller retain];
>>>> }

>>>>> ...

>>>> So, the question stands.... How do I suppress the warning.
>>>> You suppress the warning by fixing the problem it's warning you 
>>>> about. Yes,
>>>> it's just that simple.
>>>> For example, the above could be rewritten as:
>>>> - (void)setController:(id)newController {
>>>>  if (!controller) return;
>>>>  controller = [newController retain];
>>>> }
>>>> sherm--

>