On May 19, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Brad Gibbs wrote:
It all makes perfect sense, I just didn't know that not alloc'ing
and init'ing was a fully legit move.
Well, you do need to set the pointer to point to something, or else
accessing it will in the best case raise an exception, and in the
wor
Thanks to all who replied. It all makes perfect sense, I just didn't
know that not alloc'ing and init'ing was a fully legit move. I will
add Masters of the Void to the already tall stack of reading material.
On May 19, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Jack Repenning wrote:
On May 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM,
On May 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Brad Gibbs wrote:
Is it because numberToPrint is simply pointing to newNumber objects
in the array that have already been allocated and initialized?
Yes, both newNumber and numberToPrint are merely pointers to some
object. These objects are created in the first
On 20 May 2008, at 01:18, Brad Gibbs wrote:
On pages 36-7 of Aaron Hillegass' new book, he provides sample code
for a Foundation Tool called Lottery. The code is below:
NSMutableArray *array;
array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
The first loop is allocating an object an initializing it with the
value of the loop variable (i) multiplied by 3.
The second loop is just assigning a pointer to that allocated object.
It could have also been written :
for (i = 0 i < 10; i++)
{
NSLog(@"The number at index %d is %@", i,
On May 19, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Brad Gibbs wrote:
It compiled and ran as expected, too. But, when I tried to
eliminate allocation and initialization for newNumber in the first
'for loop', the app threw an exception. I don't see an explanation
in the book re why numberToPrint can be, but doe
On pages 36-7 of Aaron Hillegass' new book, he provides sample code
for a Foundation Tool called Lottery. The code is below:
NSMutableArray *array;
array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
NSNumber *newNumber = [[NSNum
