Re: [PATCH] NSSavePanel.m -beginSheetForDirectory::::::

[Fred Kiefer]

Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> Fred Kiefer wrote:
>
> > Alexander Malmberg wrote:
>
> > At least for Cocoa these enums are fully documented,
>
>
> Where? The NSRun*Response enum documentation here:
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ApplicationKit/ObjC_classic/Classes/NSApplication.html
> contains no information about the actual integer values of the
> constants. Similarly, the NS*Button enum documentation here:
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ApplicationKit/ObjC_classic/Classes/NSPanel.html
> contains no information about the actual integer values. Thus, I don't
> see where the documentation says or implies that it's safe to do eg.
> -stopModalWithCode: NSOKButton

Where would you expect enumerators to be documented? In the "Types and 
Constants" section not in the "Classes" documentation:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ApplicationKit/ObjC_classic/TypesAndConstants/AppKitTypes.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000019/BAJGDFCH

And there is also the downloadable PDF file, which may be easyly searched.

> > we just need to do
> > the same for GNUstep. And what is the hack, you see here? I just don't
> > get the meaning of the sentence.
>
>
> Your change relies on the fact that the actual integer value of
> NSRunLoopContinuesResponse is not the same as the actual integer values
> of any NS*Button enum. Unless there is documentation that makes this
> safe, I consider that an implementation detail, and relying on that is a
> hack.
>
> I suppose you could see the headers, which do specify the integer
> values, as implicit documentation, but GNUstep doesn't have a "the
> header is the documentation"-tradition.

This is a very strange statement, I already did reply to a previous mail 
from Kazu, that I don't have access to any Apple header files. Up to now 
I thought, that my writen word for not using any Apple headers should be 
enough.
There wouldn't be to much of a problem, if I had access, as long as I 
don't use them to copy things into GNUstep. But you may even remember me 
asking people with Apple computer to test certain things for me, things 
that sometimes could have been decided by looking at the headers. So why 
do you make this claim?

Not being able to find something obvious oneself is one thing, to claim 
that somebody else is using unfair means is something totally different. 
Up to now this has not been the way GNUstep developers did communicate 
with each other. I do expect an apology for this unusual behaviour.