On Sep 10, 2012, at 18:48 , Rick Mann <rm...@latencyzero.com> wrote:
> The docs say you can implement either insertObject: or insert<Key>. I figured
> it was smart enough to handle the plural-vs-singular change, otherwise it's
> grammatically awkward.
Well, you were wrong about that. :)
The intention is that to-many properties should have plural names, and the
accessor name convention reflects this:
insertObject:inConnectionsAtIndex:
insertConnections:atIndexes:
Both are grammatically correct if the property name is correct. There is no
'insertConnection:atIndex:' and nothing in the documentation to support the
idea.
> To this day I'm a little puzzled why a simple NSMutable property needs all
> the extra scaffolding. It really seems like you should get this behavior for
> free, and only need to implement those methods when the thing backing it
> isn't a standard collection.
It doesn't need "all the extra scaffolding". KVC will peer quite happily into
your instance variables by default. What you don't get for free, in that case,
is KVO compliance for the property. The purpose of providing explicit accessors
is therefore twofold:
1. It avoids letting KVC introspect your ivars, which is a horrible hack.
2. It gives you automatic KVO compliance.
_______________________________________________
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
