Re: Cocoa Bindings - nondebuggable, non-obvious, procedural ???
Re: Cocoa Bindings - nondebuggable, non-obvious, procedural ???
- Subject: Re: Cocoa Bindings - nondebuggable, non-obvious, procedural ???
- From: Charlton Wilbur <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:57:47 -0500
On Jan 5, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Will Mason wrote:
In other words, the point of that message was that the way objects
communicate with each other is orthogonal to whether or not they are
in fact objects. The fact that you came away thinking that it had
nothing to do with object orientation either means I proved my point
or I was as clear as mud.
I was having the same thought (that you proved your point, not that you
were clear as mud). Perhaps we can say with certainty at this point
that KVC and object-orientation are orthogonal (and transparent) to
each other. The fact that you can express KVC using an object-oriented
language means nothing. It's like saying that you can describe how to
do an appendectomy in both English and Spanish and you'll still be able
to to an appendectomy no matter which one you choose. Am I getting it?
I think you are, but I'd emphasize that the semantics of the language
are object-oriented or they are not (as you claimed earlier in your
statement that object-orientation had a lot more to do with
encapsulation and inheritance than with the approach to
message-passing), and this is independent of whether you interact with
entities it represents via KVC or via messages. I'm hesitant to say
"with certainty" about anything, because there might be something I
missed -- but the fact that a fairly simple set of transformations lets
us build the semantics allowed by messages from the semantics allowed
by KVC makes me rather certain.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
email@hidden
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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