Re: Keyed decoding of geometry

[Gregory John Casamento]

Fred,

--- Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
> Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> > --- Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> >>Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> >>
> >>>Does Apple use a separate method for this?   If not, why should we?
> >>>
> >>
> >>To save me some typing.
> >>Or if this is not sufficent for you (Which would be sad to hear), than 
> >>yes, Apple does it the same way. At least they want me to spend my time 
> >>with better things than typing the same lines over and over again.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Fred, my reply was partially facetious.   Also, I don't understand your
> > attitude/indignation, as I was asking a simple question which had *NOT*
> been
> > addressed in your previous emails.  
> > 
> > Apple, to my knowledge, does not split this out into two methods, the
> > aforementioned initWithCoder: and initWithKeyedCoder:, as YOU proposed.  
> They
> > test the NSCoder instance to see if it's capable of keyed coding in the
> > initWithCoder: method.   This keeps all coding in one method, *where it
> > belongs*.
> 
> Hi Gregory,
> 
> I did run into one of the most obvious traps of top posting with my 
> reply. As you did put your answer before the original mail I was not 
> sure which of the following paragraphs you did refer to and took the 
> most obvious, eg the last one. Which was wrong as I can now tell from 
> your more explicit mail. Richard did judge better and saw what you where 
> aiming at.
> Perhaps you could in the future make clear what you are refering to (ond 
> stop top posting!) and I will try to ask back before making a guess? 
> This surely would help our communication.

I normally don't "top post", hehe... sorry. :)   I posted a later message which
basically explained what I thought you guys were talking about.   I should have
been more specific.
 
> As for the original question, as I now understand it: Should we have a 
> initWithKeyedCoder: method. I had offered a solution long before your 
> mail. Is this something you could live with? The idea was start off with 
> that method, to keep changes to the existing initWithCoder: method 
> minimal and to decide later, if we keep this method or merge the code back.
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding

My feeling was that, if it makes the code easier to manage, then we should put
things in a seperate method where convenient.   These methods should be called
from the normal initWithCoder:/encodeWithCoder: methods.

I was concerned that you were discussing making the "initWithKeyedCoder:"
method a method which was called from NSKeyedArchiver/Unarchiver, which from
reading through the other messages in that thread, doesn't seem to be the case.

> Fred
> 

GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp.
-- bheron on #gnustep, #linuxstep, & #gormtalk ---------------- 
Please sign the petition against software patents at: 
http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html 
-- Maintainer of Gorm (featured in April Linux Journal) -------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/