• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes


  • Subject: Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes
  • From: Sixten Otto <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:32:51 -0700

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Luther Baker <email@hidden>wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Sixten Otto <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> The significant difference, though, between an abstract class in Java or
>>
> C#, and a protocol in Objective-C, is that the former may have substantial
>> implementation associated with it for the benefit of subclasses, and just
>> not be directly instantiable.
>>
>
> The original poster's first paragraph uses and defines the phrase "partial
> abstract class" which is what you're describing here. I think we're all
> good with what you're saying. But the point to which you are actually
> responding to is in regard to a point I made in response to Kyle's
> suggestion which had to do with the author's self described "pure abstract
> class" which we can infer has NO implementation.
>

You're right. I missed that qualifier, and in that light, this part of my
reply doesn't add anything to the conversation.

(I'm hard pressed to think of much use for such a "pure" abstract class,
though; what could you do with such a thing that couldn't be done with
interfaces.)


> And more to the point, I think the original poster already knows what you
> are saying. I think he is asking for thoughts regarding his approach to
> simulating a notional Abstract Class via mix of @protocols and @classes in
> Objective-C. He clearly knows he can't do it with @protocols alone.
>
>>
I did try to address that at the end of my message:


> Another way that Objective-C accomplishes some of the same goals is through
>> delegation. You don't, for instance, subclass a UITableView to provide its
>> data, you provide a delegate that conforms to UITableViewDataSource; which
>> protocol does have a couple of required methods.
>
>
_______________________________________________

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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes
      • From: Jens Alfke <email@hidden>
References: 
 >VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes (From: William Squires <email@hidden>)
 >Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes (From: Kyle Sluder <email@hidden>)
 >Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes (From: Luther Baker <email@hidden>)
 >Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes (From: Sixten Otto <email@hidden>)
 >Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes (From: Luther Baker <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Saving while opening with NSDocument
  • Next by Date: Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes
  • Previous by thread: Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes
  • Next by thread: Re: VC# vs. ObjC and partial abstract classes
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread