Re: AppKit source available as reference?
Re: AppKit source available as reference?
- Subject: Re: AppKit source available as reference?
- From: Scott Anguish <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 02:21:46 -0400
On Saturday, June 30, 2001, at 09:54 PM, Karl Goiser wrote:
>
For example, here's a question I asked in the list a few weeks back:
>
"How do I create an FSSpec from an NSString containing a full path
>
name"? Several people responded and I was able to obtain a solution -
>
thanks.
>
This especially falls into that no-mans-land of Carbon/Cocoa collision.
>
But the real problem with this is that I couldn't see how to find the
>
solution myself. And, judging by the number of similar questions on
>
this list, I am not alone.
>
Because in order to do this you'd need to know much more than just
Cocoa stuff.. but all of Carbon as well.
>
The reason I'm making so much about having the source code and a good
>
browser is that when I had them, I was able to solve my own problems by
>
looking through others' code - including system code.
However, as others have said, there is much much source
available.. Omni's collection is absolutely a must have reference for
example.
And having the AppKit source wouldn't be good anyways, since there
will be use of undocumented (and no public).
>
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't alternatives to this, I just
>
don't have experience of any. And the problem with tutorials in this
>
area is that you have to have lots and lots of tutorials to cover all
>
aspects of Cocoa, they are necessarily long and take time to work
>
through and you still have the problem of persistence of memory ("I
>
remember seeing some code on this topic. Which tutorial was it in?").
In some ways, that's why its good to have all these things on a
single site. Hitting the search function on Stepwise allows you to
search all of our tutorials for example.
What was great in the 'olden days' was Digital Librarian. With
this you could index all your code and have at it. I suppose you can do
something quite similar using Sherlock.
>
>
*P.S. Who decided to use setObject:forKey: instead of at:put:?
>
setObject:forKey: is rather descriptive.. at:put: is not.