On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Luke the Hiesterman wrote:
> Up to this point, I've thought of properties as "syntactic sugar" for method
> calls. That is myObject.size should compile the same as [myObject size]
> unless of course a custom getter is set in the property declaration, then it
> woul
On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Luke the Hiesterman wrote:
On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
@synthesize synthesizes the implementation of the methods only and
that is where the runtime dependency is introduced.
Does this statement imply that there is no runtime dependency if
On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
@synthesize synthesizes the implementation of the methods only and
that is where the runtime dependency is introduced.
Does this statement imply that there is no runtime dependency if I do
not synthesize my properties?
Luke
On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:21 PM, Luke the Hiesterman wrote:
So, if I declared a property called money and synthesized said
property, would [object setMoney:money] and object.money = money
compile to the same code? That, of course, implies that we're also
inserting property-related code to simpl
So, if I declared a property called money and synthesized said
property, would [object setMoney:money] and object.money = money
compile to the same code? That, of course, implies that we're also
inserting property-related code to simple method calls if they happen
to correspond with a prope
On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Luke the Hiesterman wrote:
I can't think of anything about properties that needs to be dealt
with at runtime. My understanding has it that all information
necessary for what properties do is available at compile time. E.g.
the method to call, return types, how t
Up to this point, I've thought of properties as "syntactic sugar" for
method calls. That is myObject.size should compile the same as
[myObject size] unless of course a custom getter is set in the
property declaration, then it would compile the same as if I had
called that getter. What makes
