On May 19, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
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.
I realized after I issued my post that I had inverted the thinking
regarding KVO . For bindings, the KVO is used to observe the property
that is *given* to the binding in the -
bind:toObject:withKeyPath:options: method call.
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.
Yes: there is no correlation between a named binding and any
underlying property.
_______________________________________________
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
