On 2010 Jan 11, at 09:46, Mike Abdullah wrote: >> I wonder why bindings was not as an extension of KVO, instead of as a >> separate sideshow. The effect is the same as KVO, with the addition that a >> designated setter is automatically invoked in the observer when a change is >> observed. > > What makes you say this?
Because when bindings observes a change, it uses KVO *and* invokes a special observer method, as you note ... > Bindings do work by using KVO. The default implementation calls > -setValue:forKey: when it detects a change, but any object is free to handle > a binding any way it likes. Well, I guess I'm talking about the default implementation then. I just mean I'd probably have an easier time learning bindings if they were called maybe "KVO Plus", and somehow used a class' regular properties on both ends of a binding, instead of defining this separate "bindings" namespace with definitions that often duplicate the regular properties. _______________________________________________ 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
