On 25/01/2010, at 10:12 AM, Chunk 1978 wrote:
> so it's considered better to have the following:
>
> - (IBAction)button1
> {
> //button 1 action
> }
>
> - (IBAction)button2
> {
> //button 2 action
> }
>
> - (IBAction)button3
> {
> //button 3 action
> }
> .
>
> than to have the following:
>
> - (IBAction)buttons:(id)sender
> {
> switch ([sender tag])
> case 1: //button 1 action; break;
> case 2: //button 2 action; break;
> case 3: //button 3 action; break;
> }
>
> i would find it hard to believe that the former solution is both
> easier to debug and maintain than the later.
You might, but everyone else would most likely disagree.
It's far simpler and straightforward to simply wire the button to a single
action than to have to also go in and set its tag to some arbitrary "magic
number" that only your code knows how to interpret, whereas the separate
methods can be clearly named and are visible in IB.
Switch statements are, as Andy mentioned, a bit of a code smell in OOP
programs. They have their place, but this is definitely not one of them. Tags
also have their place, but distinguishing totally separate buttons is not
really a very good use for them - since the buttons already are distinguished
by their pointers, why duplicate that by some additional number that
effectively means the same thing?
--Graham
_______________________________________________
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
