On 04.04.2009, at 02:30, Eric Hermanson wrote:
Now, one would expect that the array would contain:
element 1: MyCounterInstance.oid=1
element 2: MyCounterInstance.oid=2
However, this is NOT the case. Either the compiler or the runtime
executes the SECOND call to [MyCounterCla
This is not the var arg, it append with all functions (on Intel Mac).
Evaluation order in argument passing is undefined.
Someone in this thread (Mike IIRC) quoted the sentence in the C
standard that states this.
Le 4 avr. 09 à 08:14, Eric Hermanson a écrit :
A comma is a sequence yet the o
A comma is a sequence yet the order in arrayWithObjects is
indeterminate. It must be the var arg causing the ordering mix.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2009, at 12:29 AM, Michael Ash wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Eric Hermanson
wrote:
Some (or most) people might be aware of thi
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Eric Hermanson wrote:
> A comma is a sequence yet the order in arrayWithObjects is indeterminate.
> It must be the var arg causing the ordering mix.
No, the comma *operator* is a sequence point. In other words, if you
just write "foo(), bar();", then the order is
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Eric Hermanson wrote:
[MyCounterClass newObject] is a static method that returns a new
> autoreleased instance
A method that begins with the word "new" is supposed to return an object
that you own. See:
<
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Concep
Eric Hermanson wrote:
Some (or most) people might be aware of this caveat, but I was not, so
I'll share it.
Consider this code:
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[MyCounterClass
newObject], [MyCounterClass newObject], nil];
where [MyCounterClass newObject] is a static method that
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Eric Hermanson wrote:
> Some (or most) people might be aware of this caveat, but I was not, so I'll
> share it.
>
> Consider this code:
>
> NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[MyCounterClass newObject],
> [MyCounterClass newObject], nil];
>
> where [MyCou
