Re: KVO one-step listening but two-step notifying?
Re: KVO one-step listening but two-step notifying?
- Subject: Re: KVO one-step listening but two-step notifying?
- From: mmalcolm crawford <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:34:16 -0800
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Daniel Jalkut wrote:
I think mmalcom's gut feeling that you should design things in term
of dependent objects is probably wise. But I have gotten away with
"blank" will/did-change combos, and I assume they must be safe.
It's not up to the observer to decide how I change the values they
are observing.
As noted in my original reply, invoking will/didChange without a
change actually happening is alright (just inefficient). What is
*not* alright is to invoke *both* methods *after a change has already
occurred* (i.e. to "tickle" a bindings update). At some stage, this
will cause a problem...
mmalc
_______________________________________________
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