On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
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.
Oops, my bad. Meant to say classes aren't instantiated objects (and
thus they have no context or state, and so are appropriate for
library-type functions, etc.)
Yep. Good thing the built-in Cocoa frameworks don't have any
instantiated objects that contain library-type functions. Otherwise,
we'd have all sorts of singleton objects with names like
NSFileManager, NSWorkspace, NSUserDefaults, NSFontManager...
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]
