On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Sixten Otto hims...@sfko.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Luther Baker lutherba...@gmail.com
wrote:
A _better_ analogy to an Objective-C @protocol would be a formal Java
interface.
Sure. And the same in C# (which the OP was asking about).
And more to the point, I think the original poster already knows what you
are saying. I think he is asking for thoughts regarding his approach to
simulating a notional Abstract Class via mix of @protocols and @classes in
Objective-C. He clearly knows he can't do it with @protocols alone.
and
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Luther Baker lutherba...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Sixten Otto hims...@sfko.com wrote:
The significant difference, though, between an abstract class in Java or
C#, and a protocol in Objective-C, is that the former may have substantial
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:30 PM, William Squires wsqui...@satx.rr.comwrote:
My best guess is to:
1) Make an ObjC class, and have it implement those methods that subclasses
don't have to override. For those the subclasses must override, implement a
stub that raises an exception if a message
On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Sixten Otto hims...@sfko.com wrote:
(I'm hard pressed to think of much use for such a pure abstract class,
though; what could you do with such a thing that couldn't be done with
interfaces.)
Pure abstract class is a C++ term. It's the C++ equivalent of an
On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:29 PM, Luther Baker lutherba...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Kyle Sluder k...@ksluder.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 05:30 PM, William Squires wrote:
Hi all!
Obviously (IIRC) a pure abstract class would map to a formal protocol
in ObjC
You can emulate this behaviour somehow by not implementing the methods that is
abstract, and prevent instantiation by introspecting and throwing exceptions in
-init;. Definitely non-trivial but works.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 23:43, William Squires wsqui...@satx.rr.com wrote:
On Mar 18, 2014, at
Hi all!
Some languages (like C++ and Visual C#) allow for partial abstract classes
(i.e. some methods are implemented, while others are left to subclasses to
implement - and, in fact, must implement since the partial abstract class does
not). Is there a way to do this in ObjC?
Is this why
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 05:30 PM, William Squires wrote:
Hi all!
Some languages (like C++ and Visual C#) allow for partial abstract
classes (i.e. some methods are implemented, while others are left to
subclasses to implement - and, in fact, must implement since the
partial abstract
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Kyle Sluder k...@ksluder.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 05:30 PM, William Squires wrote:
Hi all!
Obviously (IIRC) a pure abstract class would map to a formal protocol
in ObjC (or a class interface in languages such as REALbasic/Xojo, or
VB 6).
On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Luther Baker lutherba...@gmail.com wrote:
A _better_ analogy to an Objective-C @protocol would be a formal Java
interface.
In their design, Java’s interfaces were explicitly modeled on Objective-C’s
@protocol construct.
-- Chris
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Luther Baker lutherba...@gmail.com wrote:
A _better_ analogy to an Objective-C @protocol would be a formal Java
interface.
Sure. And the same in C# (which the OP was asking about).
So, Kyle may have good reasons for his answer - but if I understand the
12 matches
Mail list logo
