Re: loop efficiency & messages
Re: loop efficiency & messages
- Subject: Re: loop efficiency & messages
- From: Charilaos Skiadas <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:33:33 -0600
Will,
I think Johnny was actually referring to the fact that KVC comes for
free if you have named your accessors for the item as "setItem:" and
"item", and he was referring to using the "item" name for the method,
instead of the "getItem" name, which KVC would not see automatically.
But his grandmother phrase wouldn't have sounded even half as funny
with all this explanation with it. :-)
I admit it is slightly unclear.
Check the docs for KVC for more details.
On Mar 23, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Will Mason wrote:
I can't imagine a situation in which I would ever view set and get as
synonymous. Set changes stuff and get doesn't, right? However, since
I've never had to deal with KVC compliance, maybe you can tell me what
I'm missing. I'm not being at all sarcastic in that statement. I really
want to know what I'm missing! Please fill me in.
Thanks for any help,
Will
On the day that you finally realize you have to make your whole
library KVC compliant you will really start to wish you had listened
to your grandmother and used 'set' instead of 'get'.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
Haris
_______________________________________________
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