“smb big sur”

Hi Nikolaus,It makes a big difference if you are currently on iOS 9.0 Public Beta 3 or iOS 9.1 Public Beta 1.Which are you on?-Max

Hi,The error makes sense due to the fact that you are trying to call a _class_ method when the declaration of that method is an instance method.Try changing- (double) TestCPP: (double) A : (double) B : (double) C :(double) D : (double) E : (double) F : (NSString*) Caller : (NSString*) Sector : (NSString*) OutPut;to+ (double) TestCPP: (double) A : (double) B : (double) C :(double) D : (double) E : (double) F : (NSString*) Caller : (NSString*) Sector : (NSString*) OutPut;My other suggestion is to have an object that will represent each field within its interface. In this case you'll avoid such a big method signature, it will especially reduce complexity for the reader.Another way of doing this is, of course, create an instance of the class and call that method, like this:let test = TestObjC().TestCPP(200.00,210.00,0.25,0.15,0.0025,0.02,alpha,bravo,charlie)First part (TestObjc()) will create an intsance (call initializer & allocate memory), and the second part is simply calling an instance method.

Again, I may be reading your code incorrect but something like:private func generateLoserLocationFunction(numberOfPlayers: Int) -> (column: Int, row: Int) -> (column: Int, row: Int) {return { row, column inlet newCol = -2 * columnswitch numberOfPlayers {case 8:switch column {case 0:return (newCol, row / 2)case 1:return (newCol, row ^ 1)}case 16:switch column {case 0:return (newCol, row / 2)case 1:return (newCol, 3 - row)case 2:return (newCol, row ^ 1)}case 32:switch column {case 0:return (newCol, row / 2)case 1:return (newCol, (row + 4) % 8)case 2:return (newCol, row)case 3:return (newCol, row ^ 1)}default:return (newCol,0)}}It's not a big change, 35 lines instead of 50 but if I'm reading it right, it should do the same thing your existing versiondoes.

I've also filed a radar asking for this. rdar://22717027A big benefit of Multipeer Connectivity will be to connect to apps on existing devices, without having to rewrite the whole protocol.

It makes a big difference if you are currently on iOS 9.0 Public Beta 3 or iOS 9.1 Public Beta 1.Which are you on?-Max

omg, i made such a stupid mistake. The user chooses the product in an UICollectionView. In didSelectItemAtIndexPath I wrote let product = self.products.objectAtIndex(indexPath.section) as! SKProductinstead oflet product = self.products.objectAtIndex(indexPath.row) as! SKProductas there is only 1 section I always purchased the first product. I logged the receipt information and as the purchase time is always 2 hours before my local time I thought I would get only the purchase information of the first product, 2 hours ago. Now everything works. Sometimes a small mistake makes very big trouble.

As far as my testing has gone... it does not support _escaped_fragment_ stuff.... which really stinks. Kind of a big deal.

It's generally understood that NSURL-based APIs are now preferred to path-based APIs. In the past couple of years (before Swift) Apple has gradually rounded out the repertoire for NSURL so that you don't ever have to use paths. Paths aren't deprecated, or even obsolescent. They're just — less preferred. It's not a big deal though. If you definitely prefer to continue with paths, you can.When you see a path-based API method that has no NSURL-based equivalent, you can take that as a pretty strong indication that the method shouldn't really be used at all, for some reason that's got nothing to do with the path vs. URL debate.One group of such methods are ones that don't return a NSError result when they fail. These are all ancient methods from the times before API design was made consistent. There's no URL-based equivalent because you should always use the new methods with the error result.Another group of such methods are ones that have an inherent vulnerability to race conditions, such as fileExistsAt

Yes some of my friends told me that my apps returned to work on 9.1Apple done it big this time!!!! Shame.

That's not true at all. There are plenty of APIs in the Cocoa framework that take NSURLs and only work with local files; for example, all of the -writeToURL:etc:etc:etc: methods found on NSString, NSData, NSArray, NSDictionary, etc. only work with local files. Also, NSURL itself has plenty of methods that only work on file-based URLs—the aforementioned checkResourceIsReachable:error: being one of them, the many resources types you can get with getResourceValue:forKey:error: that only apply to local files being another.Apple's been steadily replacing all their path-based methods with NSURL-based ones since at least Snow Leopard; that UIImage example you gave is the first example I've seen in years that didn't have an NSURL-based equivalent (which, since it's iOS and you're usually not allowed out of your app's sandbox anyway, is probably just because you're not expected to use that method much anyway). NSURLs are what you're supposed to use to refer to files—local and remote—but don't take my word from it. Her

This warning is a sign of a very real problem. Under the right (well, wrong :-) circumstances it’s quite possible for your app to be killed by the watchdog, as described in QA1693 Synchronous Networking On The Main Thread.Let’s start with the big picture issue: why are you doing reachability queries at all? This is not just me being nosy (-: The vast majority of apps that I see using reachability are using it for the wrong reasons.Share and Enjoy — Quinn The Eskimo! Apple Developer Relations, Developer Technical Support, Core OS/Hardware let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @apple.com

Really a big mess from Apple side. This is a disaster. I am waiting since a week an answer by Apple, but my App is still processing.