On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Sean McBride wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:23:25 -0500, Charles Srstka said: > >> 1. Apple reserves the underscore prefix for their own use, so you could, >> at least theoretically, clash with a superclass ivar this way, and > > In addition to what Kyle replied, I'd just like to point out that prefixing > your *methods* with an underscore is a very bad idea, since Apple does > reserve such names and a conflict will bite you at runtime possibly affecting > the binary compatibility of your app. > > IMHO, prefixing your ivars with underscore is a good idea because it's > typical convention. A conflict has never happened to me, and would mostly be > a compile-time problem. But your point about KVO is a good one! Has anyone > been bit by it?
Do I really need to quote the C and C++ standards that states that a leading underscore on a symbol is reserved to the implementation -- in other words 'the implementation' is everything that you're not writing? The proper way (today) to mark an ivar as private is to use @private. Go ahead and use a leading underscore, but don't be surprised if sometime in the future you are debugging a strange compile-time error. (I've been 'bit' by this a few times in my development). -- Glenn L. Austin, Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver <>< "Where there's breath, there's hope!" <http://www.austin-soft.com> _______________________________________________ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
