Re: What's with these redundant methods ?
Re: What's with these redundant methods ?
- Subject: Re: What's with these redundant methods ?
- From: Chris Hanson <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:45:26 -0500
At 9:02 AM -0700 4/22/03, MarketLogix Developer wrote:
Well, true I do not implement those but Object from the ObjC runtime
does implement
respondsTo: and methodFor: and any class that I implement will
inherit from Object and
so inherit these.
Not true. (Unless I misunderstand what you're saying.)
If you write
@interface Foo
{ }
@end
you've declared a new root class, not a subclass of NSObject or
Object. You have to explicitly specify a superclass if you want to
create a subclass. If you're doing Cocoa development, you should
generally be subclassing NSObject or one of its subclasses, or if
you're creating a new root class it should implement the NSObject
protocol.
I worked around this gdb stopper by implementing respondsToSelector:
and methodForSelector: in a category where they simply call
respondsTo: and methodFor: .
Why do we now have 2 different implementations of the EXACT same darn method ?
This appears to indicate that GDB's Objective-C support was written
assuming any object it could manipulate implements the NSObject
protocol.
-- Chris
--
Chris Hanson, bDistributed.com, Inc. | Email: email@hidden
Custom Application Development | Phone: +1-847-372-3955
http://bdistributed.com/ | Fax: +1-847-589-3738
http://bdistributed.com/Articles/ | Personal Email: email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.