Le 7 nov. 2011 à 08:49, Joar Wingfors a écrit : > > On 6 nov 2011, at 14:10, Bryan Harrison wrote: > >> I'm a total tyro and hope nobody minds if I fire off the occasional >> incredibly elementary question. >> >> I'm reviewing some sample code and am looking at a class with a method >> declared in @implementation which isn't mentioned in any @interface. >> >> Is this a private method, something else entirely, or merely sloppy coding? >> >> If the former, how does this technique compare with the trick of putting an… >> >> @interface someClass () >> - (type) somePrivateMethod; >> @end >> >> …in the implementation? > > > Hello Bryan, > > That would be a private method, or - like Graham pointed out - an override of > a method from a superclass. I guess it could also be "dead" code (not called > from anywhere), but that's typically not very likely. > > In OjbC you don't need to provide declarations for a method "foo" if all > callers of foo can "see" the definition of foo (ie. if they are themselves > defined *after* foo). The definition also serves as a declaration in such a > case.
Note that the 'defined after' constraint is merely a compiler limitation. Recent clang builds don't require this anymore. You can defined your private methods anywhere in the implementation. > Sure you can provide private declarations in a class extension, but why would > you? To avoid repetition is a virtue, and one of the more important ones at > that. It may be useful to workaround the afore-mentioned limitation. > > j o a r -- Jean-Daniel _______________________________________________ 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
