Thank you gentlemen, both, for taking the time to educate me. I have lots to
rethink in my "design", such as it was.
On 2012-08-03, at 12:27 AM, Quincey Morris
wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 00:16 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
>> Hmm, now that Quincy's pointed it out, it looks like you are indeed usi
Erik,
I've only made a custom subclass of NSArrayController once and that was a long
time a go to do some custom thing that I don't remember now.
Normally I add an array to the appropriate view controller that has the table
data in it and then bind the NSArrayController's content to that array.
On Aug 3, 2012, at 00:16 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
> Hmm, now that Quincy's pointed it out, it looks like you are indeed using a
> view-based table view.
No bonus points to me though. Having cleverly focused on the forest instead of
the trees, I didn't register the fact that using the data source w
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:11 AM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
> You should consider using a view-based table view if you're targeting 10.7 or
> later. They're so much nicer!
Hmm, now that Quincy's pointed it out, it looks like you are indeed using a
view-based table view. That will make your life easier
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:11 AM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
> You should consider using a view-based table view if you're targeting 10.7 or
> later. They're so much nicer!
Hmm, now that Quincy's pointed it out, it looks like you are indeed using a
view-based table view. That will make your life easier
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Erik Stainsby wrote:
>
>
> I do so wish there was a Complete Idiot's Guide to Cocoa Table Bindings … The
> very flexibility which I know must be their great virtue tends to obscure the
> clear path from my sight more often than not. Forest, trees, trees, forest …
(reposted because of an apparent bounce)
On Aug 2, 2012, at 22:16 , Erik Stainsby wrote:
> I do so wish there was a Complete Idiot's Guide to Cocoa Table Bindings … The
> very flexibility which I know must be their great virtue tends to obscure the
> clear path from my sight more often than no
