[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [swarm-hackers] Accessor Mutator methods...
From: |
Bill Northcott |
Subject: |
Re: [swarm-hackers] Accessor Mutator methods... |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:39:07 +1100 |
On 10/11/2009, at 1:27 PM, Nima Talebi wrote:
> Currently we have:
> - (id)setFoo:
> - (id)getFoo:
>
> Cocoa asks for...
> - (void)setFoo:
> - (id)foo;
>
> ...it's not a huge deal, but definitely something I'd personally prefer - but
> I have no idea on how many things it would potentially break - I'm guessing
> there's no hard coding that way, but that probing will not work - so probing
> is what would need to be rewritten? Is there more to it than that?
As I remember it, a lot of those return types were only inserted recently.
Older compilers allowed methods without a return type. As the types were
unnecessary, anything would do. I think there just a search and replace to
make all the missing ones (id). Of course reversing it is not so simple
because you have to think if the return type is meaningful and MIGHT be used.
Bill
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature