> On 12 Jul 2017, at 22:07, Quincey Morris > <quinceymor...@rivergatesoftware.com> wrote: > >> Or there's something else going on under the covers. > > Yes, you are correct, betting *against* this assumption is a really, really > terrible idea. Reasoning about the point at which objects actually deallocate > is a code smell.
I’m trying to understand memory management so I can avoid retain cycles and other issues. I have a view hierarchy that is constructed programmatically. This involves creating a view controller and a view, and then creating child view controllers and views in a tree hierarchy. Child view controllers are added to parent view controllers - so that (as I understand it) the parent view controller owns the child view controller. Each view controller is given a view, which it presumably owns, and each view is attached to a superview, which also (presumably) owns the child view. So a view is owned by its view controller and by its superview. There is also a top-level view controller that comes from a nib. If I release the child view controllers of this top-level view controller (by assigning an empty array to childViewControllers), my expectation is that I don’t have to release every view controller and view in the hierarchy because they are effectively owned by the top-level view controller. But I don’t have years of Cocoa and ARC experience, so it’s possible that I’m wrong. Hence the reasoning. Jeremy _______________________________________________ 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
