> On 2 Oct 2015, at 3:47 pm, Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> So I added @dynamic to the subclass, and all seems to be ok.
Maybe. What happens if you pass a ‘someDataClass’ instance to -setStuff:, then
return it as type subDataClass? It’s not a subDataClass, but your
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 11:28 PM, Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> I inherited some code with:
>
> @interface BaseThing : NSObject
>
> @property (nonatomic) SomeDataClass *stuff;
>
> @end
>
>
> @interface SubThing : BaseThing
>
> @property (nonatomic) SubDataClass* stuff;
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> I don’t think that I want ’stuff’ to be implemented by its superclass. Rather
> I want it to be overridden. So I am not sure, whether @dynamic is the right
> thing to do.
Implement -stuff and -setStuff: in the
> On 2 Oct 2015, at 12:40, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 22:18 , Graham Cox wrote:
>>
>> It’s not really about making the compiler happy, it’s about making your code
>> clear and bug-free.
>
>> The compiler is
I inherited some code with:
@interface BaseThing : NSObject
@property (nonatomic) SomeDataClass *stuff;
@end
@interface SubThing : BaseThing
@property (nonatomic) SubDataClass* stuff; // SubDataClass is a
subclass of SomeDataClass
@end
@implementation SubThing
// nothing
> On 2 Oct 2015, at 2:28 pm, Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> don’t think that I want ’stuff’ to be implemented by its superclass.
Are you sure? The only thing the subclass has changed about the property is its
type, which is in itself a subclass of the original type, so
On Oct 1, 2015, at 22:18 , Graham Cox wrote:
>
> It’s not really about making the compiler happy, it’s about making your code
> clear and bug-free.
> The compiler is telling you your design is probably faulty, but the correct
> solution depends on your true intentions.