Re: From Panther to Tiger
Re: From Panther to Tiger
- Subject: Re: From Panther to Tiger
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200
On 16.5.2005, at 22:36, j o a r wrote:
But I've kind of got used to that with CoreData-based stuff
Meant CoreFoundation, of course!
To be picky: This behaviour actually pre-dates CF, right? ;-)
Agreed. But those days log ago there was reason (the plist format
self-evidently was not able to store mutability). Today, both the XML
and binary formats could, if only they half-tried :)
Note though that I do *not* consider this important enough to fill a
bug (or even an enhancement request, if we agree that the current
behaviour is correct :)). Anyroad, this is a trifle; also, although
being (well, *IMHO*!) conceptually wrong, it indeed does not break
the API contract as Bob correctly said.
The reason I don't like Core Foundation is (a number of things
similar to) this:
92 /tmp> <uhoh.m
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
int main() {
[NSAutoreleasePool new];
NSLog(@"got it messed up, don't we? %d",[[NSDictionary dictionary]
isKindOfClass:[NSMutableDictionary class]]);
return 0;
}
93 /tmp> cc -Wall -framework Foundation uhoh.m && ./a.out
2005-05-16 22:57:40.877 a.out[8779] got it messed up, don't we? 1
94 /tmp>
Although perhaps *very technically* it does not break API-contract
either, I would argue it clashes very severely with any sensible look
at the class hierarchy :)
---
Ondra Čada
OCSoftware: email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz/oc
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden