Re: Release check

[Adrian Robert]

On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:52 AM, David Ayers wrote:

> Adrian Robert wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 2005, at 3:29 AM, David Ayers wrote:
> >
> > >
> [snip]
> > > - (int)compare:anotherObject;
> > > - shallowCopy;
> > > - (const char *)name;
> [snip]
> > Under what circumstances would it be necessary to include Protocol.h?
> > Does this affect just the libraries or also user code?
>
> Please excuse me, I missed the second question.  It currently affects
> "user code" that does something like:
>
> @interface FooBar : NSObject
> - (NSString *)name;
> @end
>
> void
> someCode(void)
> {
>    [[[someArray objectAtIndex:0] name] length];
> }
> as this will warn that const char * is an invalid receiver for messages
> (like length in this case).  Since both are pointers, everything is 
> fine
> at runtime.

This seems like a problem with gcc's support for alternative root 
objects.  Is there no way to tell the compiler to assume that id is 
NSObject instead of Object?  (Or do all root objects inherit from 
Object?  If this isn't a ridiculous question I can look into putting it 
in as an RFE for gcc I guess..)

Also, it seems like a pain to need to include Protocol.h to ask an 
object if if conformsTo: @protocol(...), but this is the way NeXT did 
it so I guess we are stuck with that.  If I were redesigning this from 
scratch I would make sure all Objective-C language features were pulled 
in by one include -- if that.