<x-para-attrib>0,0,0<x-tabstops>57L;115L;172L;230L;288L;345L;403L;460L;518L;576L;633L;691L;748L;806L;863L;921L;979L;1036L;1094L;1151L
> seems I've got a good sense for tracking weird problems currently. I've
> spotted an incompatibility (or, better said, difference) between GNU
> and NeXT runtimes regarding the handling of +(void)initialize in
> subclasses.
> [...]
> P.S.: I don't think that this is a bug in the GNU runtime, it's rather a
> bug in the NeXT runtime. In a discussion we just had on this topic,
> Erik, Helge and me favour the handling of the GNU runtime as it's much
> more intuitive and obvious.
Very interesting. :-)
I prefer the GNU runtime behaviour too ... I would consider it a bug in
the NeXT runtime too.
I think you gave us a reason to keep GNUstep's +initialize methods as they
are now,
@implementation NSNicola
+ (void) initialize
{
if (self == [NSNicola class])
{
/* Real code here. */
}
}
@end
since that makes sure the code will work in the same way on GNU and NeXT
runtimes.
Otherwise, the safety check is useless on the GNU runtime.
From: Nicola Pero <nicola@brainstorm.co.uk> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marcus_M=FCller?= <znek@mulle-kybernetik.com> cc: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org Subject: Re: +(void)initialize X-BeenThere: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 List-Help: <mailto:discuss-gnustep-request@gnu.org?subject=help> List-Post: <mailto:discuss-gnustep@gnu.org> List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep>,
<mailto:discuss-gnustep-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe> List-Id: Discussion list for the GNUstep programming environment
<discuss-gnustep.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep>,
<mailto:discuss-gnustep-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/discuss-gnustep/> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:08:57 +0100 (BST)
</x-tabstops></x-para-attrib><x-para-attrib>0,0,0<x-tabstops>57L;115L;172L;230L;288L;345L;403L;460L;518L;576L;633L;691L;748L;806L;863L;921L;979L;1036L;1094L;1151L
> seems I've got a good sense for tracking weird problems currently. I've
> spotted an incompatibility (or, better said, difference) between GNU
> and NeXT runtimes regarding the handling of +(void)initialize in
> subclasses.
> [...]
> P.S.: I don't think that this is a bug in the GNU runtime, it's rather a
> bug in the NeXT runtime. In a discussion we just had on this topic,
> Erik, Helge and me favour the handling of the GNU runtime as it's much
> more intuitive and obvious.
Very interesting. :-)
I prefer the GNU runtime behaviour too ... I would consider it a bug in
the NeXT runtime too.
I think you gave us a reason to keep GNUstep's +initialize methods as they
are now,
@implementation NSNicola
+ (void) initialize
{
if (self == [NSNicola class])
{
/* Real code here. */
}
}
@end
since that makes sure the code will work in the same way on GNU and NeXT
runtimes.
Otherwise, the safety check is useless on the GNU runtime.
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
</x-tabstops></x-para-attrib>