On May 20, 2009, at 09:24, Stuart Malin wrote:
In the specific case which I am working with, the UI element does
not correspond to a model value of the application's data. The
control is used only to change the presentation of the model data.
Hence, a change to the UI would necessitate, wel
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ken Thomases wrote:
> While target-action is perfectly fine for what you're trying to do, I would
> point out that controller's can have properties, too. Binding UI to a
> property of your controller is another good way to handle this situation.
> It leaves the
On May 20, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Stuart Malin wrote:
Also, on May 19, 2009, at 14:18, Stuart Malin wrote:
My specific concern is with NSSegmentedControl, which has a bindable
property "selectedIndex". I am trying to add an observer for this
property (using -addObserver: on an instance).
So you'
On May 20, 2009, at 1:04 AM, Quincey Morris wrote:
On May 19, 2009, at 17:22, Stuart Malin wrote:
I don't see why it is a design flaw to want to bind to the
selectedIndex of a segmented control so that when the user changes
the selected segment, my code to take action. Binding to the control
On May 19, 2009, at 17:22, Stuart Malin wrote:
I don't see why it is a design flaw to want to bind to the
selectedIndex of a segmented control so that when the user changes
the selected segment, my code to take action. Binding to the control
is conceptually quite similar. The two approaches
On May 19, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Quincey Morris wrote:
On May 19, 2009, at 14:18, Stuart Malin wrote:
My specific concern is with NSSegmentedControl, which has a bindable
property "selectedIndex". I am trying to add an observer for this
property (using -addObserver: on an instance). Alas, I am n
On May 19, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Quincey Morris
wrote:
On May 19, 2009, at 14:18, Stuart Malin wrote:
No. The name of the binding is *not* the same as the name of any
property of
the bound object. For example, most controls have a "value"
bi
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Quincey Morris
wrote:
> On May 19, 2009, at 14:18, Stuart Malin wrote:
> No. The name of the binding is *not* the same as the name of any property of
> the bound object. For example, most controls have a "value" binding, but
> controls don't have a "value" property
On May 19, 2009, at 14:18, Stuart Malin wrote:
As my understanding of Bindings is that they implement using KVO and
KVC, then is it safe to assume that if an object has a bindable
property, then that property should be observable with KVO, yes?
No. The name of the binding is *not* the same
