On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jonathon Kuo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but it seems an abuse to turn functions into
objects.
Functions don't retain state; objects do. Objective C very
gracefully allows
objects to call C functions. If you're doing something like [calc
addDoubleA:a withDoubleB:b], you've got a function masquerading as
an
object, which I think misses the entire point of OOP.
It is common, if not appropriate, to have utility classes (often ones
with just class methods) that provide "functions" for others to use.
At a minimum it allows you to namespace sets of utility methods.
Exactly, as classes aren't objects.
Yes they are - in Objective-C, anyway.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
