If this is your use case you can internally call the new method throughout, and
the new method discards the useless information and calls the old method using
the old contract. Updated programs will override the new method, adopting the
new behaviour, while contract of the old override point is
Hi,
I’m trying to build three targets for my Mac application that are nearly
identical, and that I want to have the same app name. One is a demo version,
that will expire a certain time after it is first launched. Another is a beta,
that expires a certain time after it is built, and the last is
On Sep 2, 2015, at 12:21 , David Durkee wrote:
>
> I’m trying to build three targets for my Mac application that are nearly
> identical, and that I want to have the same app name.
I’m happy to be corrected if wrong, but I don’t think it really matters what
you do in Xcode, since the actual app
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I just tried it and a couple of things went
wrong. The name in the build settings was what appeared in the about box (when
I ran in debug). And the program (the one that I archived and then exported)
crashed on launch, apparently because the bundle identifier
> On 3 Sep 2015, at 1:34 am, Maxthon Chan wrote:
>
> If this is your use case you can internally call the new method throughout,
> and the new method discards the useless information and calls the old method
> using the old contract. Updated programs will override the new method,
> adopting t
On 01 Sep 2015, at 01:09, Graham Cox wrote:
> Apple’s frameworks do this quite often, but I’m not sure how to achieve this
> in my own. Something simple like -respondsToSelector: isn’t any good, because
> of course it always does respond to the selector in the base class, and the
> framework ha
On Sep 2, 2015, at 15:38 , David Durkee wrote:
>
> I just tried it and a couple of things went wrong. The name in the build
> settings was what appeared in the about box (when I ran in debug). And the
> program (the one that I archived and then exported) crashed on launch,
> apparently because
