• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?


  • Subject: Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
  • From: "Michael B. Johnson" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:41:35 -0700

On Wednesday, August 7, 2002, at 12:29 AM, Nicholas Riley wrote:

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:22:59AM +0200, Georg Tuparev wrote:
What I ended up is a shell script (kind of integrated with emacs) that
makes class dump and looks for overridden methods. At the moment the
script is very dumb and reports also methods from the public API and
methods that explicitly call super's implementation - so I really use
this before code frees, new Dev Tools release and if my programs start
behaving strangely. But one day (hopefully one_day <<
NSDistantFuture ;-) I will improve this script so that I can make it a
post-compile build phase....

I wonder if it would be hard to do this as part of compilation? You
could have a compiler warning something like 'method XYZ shadows
private method implemented in superclass NSABC', and a pragma to
disable it on a per-method basis if you really know what you're doing.


no, no, no, no, no (I know most of you know the following, but for some of those following at home...)

you can (and the compiler does) do you this for instance variables, but *by definition*, the compiler cannot do this for you for methods. This is one of the fundamental misconceptions of Obj-C vs. C++, in my experience.

I can (and do) have methods that exist for my classes in one app (say InterfaceBuilder) that do not exist in an app that links against the very same framework (i.e. - (NSString *)inspectorClassName only exists in a category of the class that is implemented in the IB palette that uses that framework - there is no good reason to have it be part of the framework, right?).

It is a feature (and an unavoidable bug :-/ - actually, the point of this discussion is to figure out how to avoid it) that anyone, at anytime, can add methods to your class (or the superclass of the class you inherit from) in Objective-C.

ah, the wonder and weirdness of run-time binding.

--> Michael B. Johnson, Ph.D. -- email@hidden
--> Studio Tools, Pixar Animation Studios
--> http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~wave
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
      • From: Nicholas Riley <email@hidden>
    • Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
      • From: Georg Tuparev <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world? (From: Nicholas Riley <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
  • Next by Date: Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
  • Previous by thread: Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
  • Next by thread: Re: enough of accessors - how about private method naming conventions in the real world?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread