Re: unconnected TextFields
Re: unconnected TextFields
- Subject: Re: unconnected TextFields
- From: Robert Clair <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:30:08 -0400
A few quick points since you seem to feel that I have asked a question
to which the answer is obvious:
<Quote>
...
<End Quote>
Perhaps I spent too much time in academia, but it is generally
considered good form and Helpful To The Reader to include an
attribution with a quote. As in what section of the docs did this come
from.
This is also well explained in this forum,
Maybe, but as the person making the error is probably unenlightened on
the topic and the symptoms do not have an obvious relationship to the
cause, searching for the answer can be a bit difficult. (Not to mention
the meta-problem that I don't know of a quoting or escape mechanism
that will convince the search engine on Mamasam that the "not" in "not
connected" is a word I want to search on and not a Boolean operator.)
in comp.sys.next.*,
I mean no disrespect to anyone, but Next is a defunct company. With the
move to Apple Cocoa gains fame, wider exposure and many more converts.
A lot of the converts will be coming from a general Unix background but
no previous NextStep exposure. If successful development requires
haunting Next lists as well as Apple lists then Apple should publicize
this.
and many other places.
such as ?
probably ALL of the available Cocoa book mention this.
You are misinformed here. I have the two O'Reilly books: _Building
Cocoa Applications_ (BCA) and _Learning Cocoa with Objective-C (LCO)_.
I also have
Anguish, et al, _Cocoa Programming_ (CP). This is not all of them but
it is certainly typical of what an experienced developer coming from
another environment might buy. (Admission. I exaggerated. I weighed
them this morning on the food scale that I bought to try and keep
myself from eating too much pasta. They only come to 7 3/4 lbs, not 20
lbs.) A quick look in the indices reveals:
establishConnection:
BCA - no, LCO - no, CP - no
takeValue:forKey:
BCA - no, LCO - a brief discussion starting on p.195, but no indication
that this has anything to do with IB, CP - no
"Key - Value coding" or "Key - Value Archiving"
BCA - no, LCO - previously mentioned pages starting at p.195, CP - no
IB is a wonderful tool [which it most certainly is], look how easy it
is to connect stuff up and make interfaces quickly, along with no
mention of this particular hazard (yes, they do mention the objects are
"freeze dried" but no mention that this has any particular implications
for your coding):
BCA- yes, LCO - yes, CP - yes
With all due respect, in general naming of the methods and functions
_is_, in the general case, a convention. If additional restrictions are
imposed in a particular case (the need to reserve certain names for a
protocol, methods that are defined in a parent object, etc) then these
need to be well publicized. And in this case they are certainly NOT
well publicized.
This is akin to inviting someone to pad around your comfortable house
barefoot, while neglecting to mention the glass shards on the kitchen
floor.
.....Bob Clair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup
"His phone's software was written in C++." - Robert Clair
_______________________________________________
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.