Re: Cocoa-dev Digest, Vol 5, Issue 919
Re: Cocoa-dev Digest, Vol 5, Issue 919
- Subject: Re: Cocoa-dev Digest, Vol 5, Issue 919
- From: Johnny Lundy <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 00:33:32 -0400
Objective-C is different from the simple function you give as an
example.
There is a receiver. Yet the receiver is never listed in any of the
method descriptions.
On May 26, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Greg Titus wrote:
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 20:54:40 -0700
From: Greg Titus <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: running an external app
To: Johnny Lundy <email@hidden>
Cc: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Now the line
- (BOOL)launchApplication:(NSString *)appName
May be technically the declaration of the method, but is that really
useful to anybody? After all, you do not declare this method in your
code; you just invoke it. I can't tell you how many times I have
been led astray by this terminology - took me at least a year to
figure out that the way it is written has nothing to do with how you
use it.
I'm sorry, I've had some sympathy with yours and others complaints
about the documentation up until now - after all, it's been so long
since I was new at this that maybe I just can't see things through new
eyes - but this is just going too far.
Don't worry - I know they aren't going to change it. It's even been
stated that they deliberately removed material from the Class
References.
How you declare a method
versus how you call a method was something that confused you for a
year? Is that really what you are saying here?
Not the concept - the documentation. At least a year, maybe two. It
still slows me down to have to translate into the [receiver message]
construct that is what I really need, namely because there is no
mention of the receiver.
If you look at my posted project you'll see that I know how to do
this, but that doesn't mean I think it's correctly documented.
Differing syntax between declarations and calls exists in almost every
programming language ever made. (The only exceptions being languages
that don't have function declarations at all.)
Well, of course. That doesn't mean that the "Class Reference" should
only list the prototype and not the invocation.
If you can't
immediately see the difference and easily translate between
declarations (e.g. "(int)fibonacci(int n)") and calls (e.g.
"fibonacci(12)") then you simply do not know even the most basic
syntax of the language and no framework reference documentation,
however it is written, is going to help you.
-- Greg
That's not true, and the tone of that is a holdover from the early
days of the USENET groups where it was considered appropriate to
chastise newbies, AOLers, etc. I can take it because I was around back
in those days and know where it comes from -- but it is surely scaring
away many people who would want to post.
That oft-quoted essay on how to ask a question is old, and from the
first time I saw it I thought it was out of line. My response would be
that there should be a similar essay on how to ANSWER a question, and
the first line of that essay should be "either answer it or ignore
it." I know in the forums at AppleInsider that I moderate, nobody gets
away with the "OMG Use Teh Search N00b" answer - that kind of reply is
against the posting guidelines, and if I see it I remove it.
_______________________________________________
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