Depending on the complexity of the application and amount of core
services utilized, converting an existing manual retain/release project
to ARC can instigate a battle you may not want to fight. When I
attempted that with my medium complexity application, I quickly realized
it was a mistake, he
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:43 PM, David Rowland wrote:
>
> It’s best to use ARC uniformly in a project and not mix with non-ARC modules.
> Xcode has a tool to upgrade projects to ARC. I have used it a number of
> times, and it seems to do a very good job.
I haven't had any problem mixing ARC wit
It’s best to use ARC uniformly in a project and not mix with non-ARC modules.
Xcode has a tool to upgrade projects to ARC. I have used it a number of times,
and it seems to do a very good job.
David
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Jerry Krinock wrote:
>
>
>> On 2015 Jan 30, at 10:08, Trygve
> On 2015 Jan 30, at 10:08, Trygve Inda wrote:
>
> Do you see non-ARC code becoming obsolete?
Non-ARC code is already obsolete, but what I think you mean is will non-ARC
code fail to compile or run in some future OS version. Never say “never” with
Apple, but in this case, I don’t think so, b
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Trygve Inda wrote:
>
>>>
On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:44 PM, Trygve Inda wrote:
However, naming conventions expect copy to not
be autoreleased so should the above really be:
return ([copy retain]);
>>>
>>> Yes, if you're really still not
On Jan 30, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Trygve Inda wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:44 PM, Trygve Inda wrote:
>>>
>>> However, naming conventions expect copy to not
>>> be autoreleased so should the above really be:
>>>
>>> return ([copy retain]);
>>
>> Yes, if you're really still not using ARC ;-)
>
>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:44 PM, Trygve Inda wrote:
>>
>> However, naming conventions expect copy to not
>> be autoreleased so should the above really be:
>>
>> return ([copy retain]);
>
> Yes, if you're really still not using ARC ;-)
>
> —Jens
I am not using ARC - this is a large project t
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:44 PM, Trygve Inda wrote:
>
> However, naming conventions expect copy to not
> be autoreleased so should the above really be:
>
> return ([copy retain]);
Yes, if you're really still not using ARC ;-)
—Jens
___
Cocoa-dev mail
