> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:02 PM, David Duncan <david.dun...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> The intended meaning was “the warning (about passing nil) is intended”. The
> helpful followup is that it is generally encouraged to use empty containers
> (@[] or @{}) over nil when there is no semantic difference, as is the case
> for the aforementioned API.
I took it to mean that something was supposed to be logged to the Console if
you passed nil to it (which doesn’t happen in my testing). While it's certainly
true that @{} is a perfectly fine way to pass an empty set of data to this
method, the documentation says that nil is fine, which is an inconsistency. My
argument was that either the method signature or the documentation needs to be
changed so that they agree with each other.
Charles
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
