Re: Mutable Literals

#1 · March 23, 2022, 10:33 pm

Quote from Forum Archives on March 23, 2022, 10:33 pm
Posted by: fblistserve <fblistserve@...>

Ken wrote:

Reading this interesting article about Objective-C literals that we now have in FB:

https://blog.andrewmadsen.com/2021/06/07/constant-literals-in.html

Wow, nice find Ken. Looks like clang 13( and not just Xcode as the author noted ) defaults to the new compiler param( -fobjc-constant-literals ) which supports the new constant literals.

When there's time I'm going to see if adding that new parm is ILO "-ObjC" or both can be used. Since it's working, no rush.

The author is discussing several points which all need a separate discussion ( and my post barely scratches the surface, so everyone should read it ).

It looks like the compiler ( instead of the new in 2012 literals being just a wrapper - syntactic sugar - for standard Objective-C calls alloc/init etc. ) stores the new translation into a CONST section of the binary which which changes the ObjC rules for compile-time constants.

Also, keep in mind that the "initializer" syntax ( borrowed directly from C and applied to Objective-C as this syntactic sugar ) is not considered a modification to an immutable object. Yes, code can replace an array ( with the literal syntax ) with the same array minus one of its elements but you can't ( for example ) delete the 3rd element in an array in-place unless the array is mutable. At least that's how it is with Objective-C and Core Foundation/Foundation. Swift is going in a different ( better? ) direction away from the idea of mutable/immutable.

I wrote the demo below as an exercise of the concept, and thought it might have limited interest on the list.

Thanks, I'm hoping to look at it.

I've noted some anomalies between what's not supposed to work in Objective-C compared with what does work in FB.

It's very likely this is all clang 13 since its default is to turn the new functionality on.

Also, note in the gConst_Arr that when the element "hot dog" is appended, it appears in quotes in the NSLog printed array.

If my understanding of your example is right, this is known but I'll hold my comments until after reviewing it. Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: [email protected] To access the list archives, go to: http://freegroups.net/groups/futurebasic/

Posted by: fblistserve <fblistserve@...>

Ken wrote:

Reading this interesting article about Objective-C literals that we now have in FB:

https://blog.andrewmadsen.com/2021/06/07/constant-literals-in.html

Wow, nice find Ken. Looks like clang 13( and not just Xcode as the author noted ) defaults to the new compiler param( -fobjc-constant-literals ) which supports the new constant literals.

When there's time I'm going to see if adding that new parm is ILO "-ObjC" or both can be used. Since it's working, no rush.

The author is discussing several points which all need a separate discussion ( and my post barely scratches the surface, so everyone should read it ).

It looks like the compiler ( instead of the new in 2012 literals being just a wrapper - syntactic sugar - for standard Objective-C calls alloc/init etc. ) stores the new translation into a CONST section of the binary which which changes the ObjC rules for compile-time constants.

Also, keep in mind that the "initializer" syntax ( borrowed directly from C and applied to Objective-C as this syntactic sugar ) is not considered a modification to an immutable object. Yes, code can replace an array ( with the literal syntax ) with the same array minus one of its elements but you can't ( for example ) delete the 3rd element in an array in-place unless the array is mutable. At least that's how it is with Objective-C and Core Foundation/Foundation. Swift is going in a different ( better? ) direction away from the idea of mutable/immutable.

I wrote the demo below as an exercise of the concept, and thought it might have limited interest on the list.

Thanks, I'm hoping to look at it.

I've noted some anomalies between what's not supposed to work in Objective-C compared with what does work in FB.

It's very likely this is all clang 13 since its default is to turn the new functionality on.

Also, note in the gConst_Arr that when the element "hot dog" is appended, it appears in quotes in the NSLog printed array.

If my understanding of your example is right, this is known but I'll hold my comments until after reviewing it. Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: [email protected] To access the list archives, go to: http://freegroups.net/groups/futurebasic/