On Aug 1, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Mark Sanvitale wrote:
I copied your code from Mail and pasted it into a text file.
[ip193:~/Desktop] mas% cc test.m -framework Foundation -o test
test.m:33: warning: incomplete implementation of class
'PortalActionView'
test.m:33: warning: method definition for '
I copied your code from Mail and pasted it into a text file.
[ip193:~/Desktop] mas% cc test.m -framework Foundation -o test
test.m:33: warning: incomplete implementation of class
'PortalActionView'
test.m:33: warning: method definition for '-displayCapture' not found
test.m:33: warning: class
On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Mark Sanvitale wrote:
I think I am doing exactly what you say is necessary (i.e. declare
the second method in the superclass's public interface).
Here are some code snippets:
Turning your code snippets into a test program, I can't reproduce that
compiler warn
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Mark Sanvitale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @interface PortalActionView : PortalTabView
>
>
> So, PortalActionView does implement processedArchive: (without declaring it
> in its interface) but the displayCapture method is coming from its super
> class which does d
I think I am doing exactly what you say is necessary (i.e. declare
the second method in the superclass's public interface).
Here are some code snippets:
PortalTabView is the super class (which happens to also adopt a
protocol, which is not part of this issue but including it for
completene
On Jul 31, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Mark Sanvitale wrote:
I have a formal protocol that declares two methods. I have a class
that adopts this protocol. This class implements one of the
protocol methods. This class inherits from another class. This
super class actually implements a method match
I have a formal protocol that declares two methods. I have a class
that adopts this protocol. This class implements one of the protocol
methods. This class inherits from another class. This super class
actually implements a method matching the signature of the second
method declared in
