On Nov 11, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Christian Ziegler wrote:
> In order to reuse code I find it often very handy to write little "getters"
> which don't get their return value from an ivar but compute it somehow. I
> believe this is called derived property since it derives its value from other
> properties. My question is, what is the best style implementing such derived
> properties. With dot-notation in mind, I think the options are:
>
> 1. Only write the "getter"-method, no property, no sythesize, DON'T use
> dot-notation
> 2. Only write the "getter"-method, no property, no sythesize, DO use
> dot-notation
> 3. Write "getter"-method, write property (readonly, to justify dot-notation),
> sythesize
>
> A basic question here is, for any method which might as well be a property
> and of course doesn't have any parameters, is it ok to use dot-notation or
> should'nt you do that.
>
> Simple example:
>
> - (BOOL)itemsSelected {
> return [myTableView selectedRow] != -1;
> }
4. Write a getter method, @property(readonly), and no @synthesize. Use dot
notation if you like.
There's no need to @synthesize since you are providing the entire property
implementation (the getter method) yourself.
One reason to make it a proper @property is that Xcode's autocompletion of dot
notation only looks at @properties, not methods. So `obj.i` will autocomplete
to `obj.itemsSelected` only if there is an @property itemsSelected.
--
Greg Parker gpar...@apple.com Runtime Wrangler
_______________________________________________
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:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
