On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Quincey Morris <quinceymor...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On May 19, 2009, at 14:18, Stuart Malin wrote: > No. The name of the binding is *not* the same as the name of any property of > the bound object. For example, most controls have a "value" binding, but > controls don't have a "value" property.
Actually, be careful if you're implementing a bindable object. I believe the default implementation of -bind:toObject:withKeyPath:options: actually uses the provided key as a property, even though this isn't documented anywhere. > The assumption underlying your assumption, that there is some sort of direct > correlation between a binding and an underlying property, is also false. > Typically, bindings will be implemented so as to use one or more properties > of the bound object, but that's not a requirement (except perhaps in a > looser conceptual sense). This point needs to be made more clearly: binding names and properties live in separate namespaces. --Kyle Sluder _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
