On Jun 16, 2017, at 13:48 , Charles Srstka <cocoa...@charlessoft.com> wrote: > > This is incorrect.
It’s incorrect as a 2-way binding, but it works as a pair of so-called 1-way bindings, with the proviso that they may need to be unbound manually, to prevent reference cycles, which it sounds like is what Jerry is doing. The thing that I always said that no one believed is that there’s really no such thing as 1-way binding, and NSObject’s default implementation of the “bind:…” method does *not* establish a binding. It’s *part* of the implementation of a proper 2-way binding (as explained in the documentation you referenced), and for a given receiver class the method only establishes a 2-way binding if it’s an override that provides the rest of the functionality. But every time I said that (until I stopped saying it about 10 years ago), people would jump in and say that the NSObject implementation really does establish a binding, and if it’s only one-way, that’s just-fine-with-them-thank-you-very-much. Thanks for the mention of mmalc, BTW. Them were the times. <elderly cough> _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) 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: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
