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
On 23.09.2010, at 03:25, Matt Neuburg wrote:
In the current version of IB, you can go to Library Classes Outlets and
define an outlet name. If you do this and, say, add an outlet name called
howdy on some nib object, and draw the outlet with that name, then when
the nib loads, setHowdy: will
On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Jim Thomason wrote:
So basically, I get a language built-in version of a macro, and an
option to use a new syntax that I'm not interested in anyway.
Is there something else I'm not seeing or some other utility to them
that I don't yet understand?
One point
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:16:19 +0200, Uli Kusterer
witness.of.teacht...@gmx.net said:
One point nobody mentioned so far: You can use different names for your public
property (e.g. an IBOutlet) and your internal storage (i.e. the instance
variable). I like to avoid name collisions between local
On or about 9/22/10 5:06 PM, thus spake Ken Ferry kenfe...@gmail.com:
but previously you could only make an IBOutlet called cancelButton by having
an ivar called cancelButton.
That's just not so. Let's not mix apples and oranges.
* An outlet is a thing in the nib.
* IBOutlet is not an
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:29:20 -0700, Bill Bumgarner b...@mac.com said:
- synthesis just works (pretty much every attempt at hand-rolled atomicity
I've seen has been wrong or bog slow)
And even if properties did nothing for me beyond writing my accessors for
me, it would still be worth it. They
Bill Bumgarner b...@mac.com writes:
Thus, with the latest bleeding edge compiler, all you need is the
@property() (and cleanup in -dealloc) to declare a fully KVO
compliant attribute of your class.
Is this also supported by the debugger? In XCode 3.x I once tried to
omit the iVars but that's
On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:30 AM, Stefan Nobis wrote:
Bill Bumgarner b...@mac.com writes:
Thus, with the latest bleeding edge compiler, all you need is the
@property() (and cleanup in -dealloc) to declare a fully KVO
compliant attribute of your class.
Is this also supported by the debugger?
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Jim Thomason wrote:
I'm refactoring and updating a lot of my older code, and one of the
things I'm finally looking into is declaring things as properties.
But...what's the point? I've been trying to read up on the subject and
have found a lot of posts
On 20 Sep 2010, at 11:47, Chris Hanson wrote:
GDB doesn’t support dot syntax for invoking property getters, so you just
need to use bracket syntax when doing it:
Maybe Stefan meant rather that the ivars do not show up in the debugger window.
It's a real pain to have to go to the console
Antonio Nunes devli...@sintraworks.com writes:
Maybe Stefan meant rather that the ivars do not show up in the
debugger window.
Yes, that was the point of the question.
--
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.
pgpasS7cYk4A8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Stefan Nobis wrote:
Antonio Nunes devli...@sintraworks.com writes:
Maybe Stefan meant rather that the ivars do not show up in the
debugger window.
Yes, that was the point of the question.
And Chris explained that properties don't necessarily *have* ivars for
On 20 Sep 2010, at 19:27, Seth Willits wrote:
And Chris explained that properties don't necessarily *have* ivars for you to
look at anyway. If you want to see its value, then you need to run the
print/po command on the gdb command line.
Fair enough. And what I would like to see, is the
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Antonio Nunes
devli...@sintraworks.com wrote:
On 20 Sep 2010, at 19:27, Seth Willits wrote:
And Chris explained that properties don't necessarily *have* ivars for you
to look at anyway. If you want to see its value, then you need to run the
print/po command
On 20 Sep 2010, at 20:00, Kyle Sluder wrote:
Did you mean synthesized ivars? It is important you be precise.
Yes that is what I meant.
Automatically showing synthesized properties—or any properties at
all—would be a bad idea, because methods have side effects, and even
calling simple
I'm refactoring and updating a lot of my older code, and one of the
things I'm finally looking into is declaring things as properties.
But...what's the point? I've been trying to read up on the subject and
have found a lot of posts and discussion about the subject, but very
little of it seems
On Sep 19, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Jim Thomason wrote:
I'm refactoring and updating a lot of my older code, and one of the
things I'm finally looking into is declaring things as properties.
But...what's the point?
[...]
Is there something else I'm not seeing or some other utility to them
that I
On Sep 19, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Markus Spoettl wrote:
One thing you get is automatic KVO change notifications. When you set a
property through its setter, you don't have to use -willChangeValueForKey:
and -didChangeValueForKey: in order to trigger -observeValueForKeyPath:
messages for those
On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Jim Thomason wrote:
I know I'd get use of the dot syntax (I do need to use @properties to
do that, right?)
No. Dot syntax is syntactic sugar for invoking accessors. The accessor do not
have to be related to a declared property (i.e. @property). Dot syntax works
19 matches
Mail list logo
