Re: Setter Gettor method style

[Philippe C . D . Robert]

Hi,

On Wednesday, August 14, 2002, at 09:53 PM, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > From: "Christian Edward Gruber" <cgruber@israfil.net>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:15:48 -0400
> >
> > [...]
> > Unfortunately untrue.  It is possible, and in a highly 
> > multi-processing box,
> > [...]
> > there.  It's not likely to fail, but it may fail.  If your code is
> > multithreaded, then option number 2 is preferable.
> > [...]
> > No, this is not true if you are in a truly multithreading environment.
> > [...]
>
> I agree,  in multithreading/multiprocessing environments,  the GNUstep
> library is not clean, and the return([[target retain]autorelease]); is
> one step toward a more correct solution.

I don't really agree (maybe because I am coming from Irix/SGI where 
multithreading is an important, daily issue and not just a hypothetical 
case as in other environments...), either a solution is/has to be 100% 
threadsafe or it is clearly stated as not and then it is up to the 
developer using GNUstep to make it threadsafe. This retain/autorelease 
'solution' is definitly not threadsafe, so why make the effort at all? 
You cannot have a 90% threadsafety and it would be very dangerous to 
address the problem using such an philosophy.

...but maybe I misunderstand your point here?

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip