Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts accurately. I'm grateful for
your sup****t and I apologize if my critics have resulted rude. My
intention was just making constructive (never destructive) critics
about the new features of the language.
On 2008-01-03 03:04:28 +0100, Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> ActiveMan <basurero@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-02 18:24:01 +0100, Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>> objc_property_t is so named because the entire ObjC runtime is named
using
>>> POSIX-style conventions, which means all lowercase, underscore to
separate
>>> words, and types end in _t. There is nothing strange or unusual about
it.
>>
>> Introspection metadata is represented as Class, Protocol, Category,
>> Ivar and objc_property_t.
>
> I guess they decided to become more consistent and have less of a risk
of
> conflicting with other people's symbols.
>
>>> __strong and __weak were chosen in order not to break existing code.
There
>>> is nothing stopping you from doing a #define strong __strong if you
don't
>>> like it.
>>
>> Ok, I assume that Objective-C is also ageing.
>
> I have no idea what this could mean which would not make it a mindless
> platitude. *Everything* is aging.
>
> You seem to have a pretty bad attitude toward this language, going even
to
> the subject of this thread. Your strategy for getting information seems
to
> boil down to, "this sucks, prove me wrong". I'm willing to give you the
> benefit of a doubt up to a point, but you should realize how you're
coming
> off if it's not intentional.
|
