Re: [OT] "Fluent Interface"? Welcome to NeXT
Re: [OT] "Fluent Interface"? Welcome to NeXT
- Subject: Re: [OT] "Fluent Interface"? Welcome to NeXT
- From: Jim Brownfield <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:05:48 -0700
On Aug 3, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Uli Kusterer wrote:
On 03.08.2007, at 05:39, Jeff Laing wrote:
In fact the whole "sending a message to nil silently succeeds" has
to be the
most stupid decision ever in language design. Its benefits are
massively
outweighed by its ability to mask problems, in my opinion.
Amen.
I wasn't going to reply on-list to this thread since this is off-
topic (but it's nice to see some other old-timers involved ;) ), but
I don't agree with this at all. It seems to me that your presumption
is that nil represents an error, but there were lots of cases where
nil was returned intentionally knowing that whomever was calling the
returned object would not error out, but rather just execute a no-
op. It was rather elegant, and mixed with a decent exception
throwing mechanism, not that dangerous either.
The real problem with returning self, of course, was with the
overhead for the distributed object mechanism.
--
Jim Brownfield
email@hidden
Radical System Solutions, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden