On 21 Sep, 2010, at 18:48, Matt Neuburg wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:56:20 -0700, Chris Hanson <c...@me.com> said: >> Don't think of dot syntax as syntactic sugar for sending messages. Think of >> dot > syntax as the way to access the state exposed by an object, and bracket syntax > as the way to have an object do something. > > No, I think that's bollocks. Dot syntax is *exactly* syntactic sugar for > calling the accessor, and using it correctly depends upon keeping that fact > firmly in mind. m.
I believe what Chris is saying is that you want to /think of/ properties as being state exposition. He isn't saying they're not technically sugar. If you think of them purely as sugar, you're missing the semantic value of using them in the first place. -- michael _______________________________________________ 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
