On Apr 13, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Jerry Krinock wrote:
Usually it is not, but sometimes it is. I can't remember the
specific examples right now, but maybe to avoid a retain cycle, some
other object may have a weak reference to the ivar, or the ivar may
have been made a delegate of some object.
This is not related to retain cycles at all.
In Non-GC, having a pointer to an object doesn't imply ownership. In
GC it does (unless __weak), but the collector is smart enough to
detect cycles.
Messages to nil result in no-op but messages to deallocced objects
result in a crash.
...but if your code is designed in a way where messages are sent to
deallocated objects, I would say that you should solve that problem,
and not set your instance variables to nil. Fix it at the source.
j o a r
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
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:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
