On 29 Mar 2017, at 09:19, Paul Hoadley <pa...@logicsquad.net> wrote: > Anyone else got any thoughts on all this?
I see it was discussed on the old Wonder list back in 2009. Dave Avendasora asked the exact question I asked: > Since this is a to-many relationship shouldn't it be > "ERXKey<NSArray<ScheduledRoutingRelationship>>"? And Mike Schrag answered: > no it just doesn't really work this way ... if it did this, it's easy to > extend it to add the array, but it's impossible to deconstruct it to get the > inner type. there are methods to extend keys, etc with array variants for > most operations, but you rarely actually want the type of the key to be > NSArray<T> Along with Samuel’s observations, seems like case closed. It does still seem to leave ERXGenericRecord.valueForKey(ERXKey<T> key) broken in the case of to-many relationship ERXKeys, though, doesn’t it? (Worse, it will break at runtime.) -- Paul Hoadley http://logicsquad.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
