On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ken Tozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, why do you need to send such common math
> operations to a soap request? Wouldn't it be easier to do simple stuff
> like calculations in your Soap class and only make requests for the
> unique services t
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:53 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jo
On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jonathon Kuo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jonathon Kuo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but it seems an abuse to turn functions into
ob
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jonathon Kuo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but it seems an abuse to turn functions into
objects.
Functions don't retain state; objects do. Objec
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jonathon Kuo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but it seems an abuse to turn functions into
objects.
Functions don't retain state; objects do. Objective C very
gracefully allows
objects to call C
Just out of curiosity, why do you need to send such common math
operations to a soap request? Wouldn't it be easier to do simple stuff
like calculations in your Soap class and only make requests for the
unique services the endpoint provides?
On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Austin Ziegler wro
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jonathon Kuo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just my 2 cents, but it seems an abuse to turn functions into objects.
> Functions don't retain state; objects do. Objective C very gracefully allows
> objects to call C functions. If you're doing something like [calc
> add
On Nov 19, 2008, at 9:27 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
For a project that I'm working on, I have a need to write a code
generator that will wrap certain kinds of C functions as Objective C
messages on an Objective C proxy. Because I don't ultimately control
the input, the parameters on the C functio
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Michael Ash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please excuse a foolish question, but Why wrap this in Objective-C
> at all? Looks like the resulting ObjC code is essentially the same,
> except uglier, slower, and harder to use. Why not just keep the C and
> use it di
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For a project that I'm working on, I have a need to write a code
> generator that will wrap certain kinds of C functions as Objective C
> messages on an Objective C proxy. Because I don't ultimately control
> the input, t
On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Alexander Spohr wrote:
I’d go for #1.
If you have an error in status, throw an exception.
In this case, an exception might actually be OK, given that the
library is in isolation.
However, it goes against the design patterns of Cocoa and if the code
is ever re
On Nov 20, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
result = [calc addDoubleA:a withDoubleB:b]; // #1
Why not -addDouble:withDouble: ?
That is, why are you promoting the argument names into the method
signature? Especially since you're aware that the names are (most
often) useless.
res
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Alexander Spohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd go for #1.
> If you have an error in status, throw an exception.
>
> What is the reason to put those functions in a class anyway if you just
> mimic the c-function? Are you adding anything?
Yes, I am. The C function
Austin,
I’d go for #1.
If you have an error in status, throw an exception.
What is the reason to put those functions in a class anyway if you
just mimic the c-function? Are you adding anything?
atze
Am 20.11.2008 um 06:27 schrieb Austin Ziegler:
For a project that I'm working on,
For a project that I'm working on, I have a need to write a code
generator that will wrap certain kinds of C functions as Objective C
messages on an Objective C proxy. Because I don't ultimately control
the input, the parameters on the C functions may be poorly named. I'm
looking for advice on how
16 matches
Mail list logo
