Re: Re: clicking through
Re: Re: clicking through
- Subject: Re: Re: clicking through
- From: "Michael Ash" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:56:44 -0400
On 9/11/06, Mailing list subscriptions <email@hidden> wrote:
El 11/09/2006, a las 18:29, Michael Ash escribió:
>> Suggested course of action: file a bug report against the
>> documentation.
>
> Why? As far as I can tell, the documentation is *correct*. Overlapping
> views are supported in Cocoa, subject to the limitations outlined in
> the documentation. The documentation isn't what I'm worried about. My
> point is that everyone says "Cocoa doesn't support overlapping views",
> but neither the documentation nor the implementation seem to actually
> support this position.
Scott Anguish is a respected author ("Cocoa Programming", http://
www.cocoaprogramming.net/), was one (and maybe still is) one of the
key people behind Stepwise (http://stepwise.com/), has been a Mac
developer for the last 22 years, and a NeXT developer since 1992.
Most importantly of all, he works for Apple as a Senior Technical
Writer in their Cocoa & Xcode Tools group (bio: http://
conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/macosx2004/view/e_spkr/1322).
Thank you, but I already know who he is.
He just
quoted a section from Apple's documentation that says:
"Cocoa does not enforce clipping among sibling views or guarantee
correct invalidation and drawing behavior when sibling views overlap.
If you want a view to be drawn in front of another view, you should
make the front view a subview (or descendant) of the rear view."
And you'll notice that I quoted that exact same section in my own
e-mail as well.
Without getting bogged down in the semantics of the word, "should",
this seems clear enough to me; NSView was not designed to support
overlapping views, other than the subview-superview case. Just
because it's possible to hack around this doesn't mean that it's
"supported".
And there we differ. If something is not supported, it should say so.
If the docs say that something is supported but you shouldn't do it,
then in my mind it is supported, no matter how famous the guy is
that's saying it's not.
As I said in my last email, if you think it's the documentation is
not clear enough then file a bug report against the documentation.
And again, I think the documentation is perfectly clear. I just don't
see where it supports the conclusion that everyone draws.
Trying to prove that you're right on this list won't help.
It certainly might help. There are several possible helpful outcomes
to this discussion:
1) Somebody shows me a place in the docs where it really does state
that this is actually unsupported. I realize I've been wrong, and
write better code because of it.
2) At some point it is decided that this really is unsupported but the
documentation is unclear. The docs get fixed and this discussion is
archived for anyone who has similar questions.
3) It somehow turns out that I'm right and it's supported with
caveats, in which case more people know this than before.
I'm not trying to "prove I'm right", I'm just trying to get a clear
answer on an issue that I believe to be adequately documented, but in
which the common wisdom is directly contrary. If this process involves
contradicting people who have written famous books and have more
experience than I do, then so be it.
Mike
_______________________________________________
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