On Dec 8, 2008, at 2:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 Dec 2008, at 18:53, Sherm Pendley wrote:
No, the solution is to not try to test for mutability. Such tests
don't work because they're not *supposed* to work - code that tries
to do such things is broken as designed. And no, it's not an
"ethical" issue. Writing broken code isn't a question of good and
evil, it's simply a question of what works and doesn't work.
I would disagree. I see nothing wrong with the logically necessity
of testing for mutability. It's just a property.
As Savant said, if it's an object you created, you should already know
whether it's mutable or not, because you created it with whichever
property you need.
If it's not an object you created, then it was passed to you via an
API. An API is like a contract, in that its requirements work both
ways. It's not just describing the behavior of other code, but the
expectations it has of your code as well.
If the API specifies an immutable collection, it's not just telling
you that code other than yours won't be modifying it - it's also
telling you that some other code is not expecting *you* to do so
either, and may react badly if you do.
sherm--
_______________________________________________
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]
