Re: [Modeling-users] takeValue* vs. setValue*

[Mario R. <ma...@ru...>]

On Dimanche, ao=FB 10, 2003, at 16:07, Sebastien Bigaret wrote:
> Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> wrote:
>> I get this warning:
>>
>> DeprecationWarning: Method setValueForKey is deprecated. Please use
>> takeValueForKey instead.
>>
>> I may have misundertood the discussion earlier, but my understanding
>> was that "setValue*" is what we agreed to standardize upon?
>
> Sorry, the discussion ended up with:
>
>   - cleaning KeyValueCoding,
>
>   - design an alternate mix-in class
>
> See in particular:
>     https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=3D5250043
>     https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=3D5420400
>   (last one is your post ;)

In which I actually said 'OK' to depracte setValue*... ;)
In my head I had it the opposite way! Sorry about that.

Anyway, we stick to what we have now.
About the continued discussion for a replacement of KVC + relation=20
manips,
as exposed by methods on CustomObject, I will let it simmer for a
while. Maybe in the meantime, an "API quick reference" page could
minimize all these issues, as well as help indicate what the API could=20=

be.
I will work on this.

Cheers, mario


>   Now if you feel like taking the lead for discussing this and=20
> ultimately come
>   w/ a proposal, feel free :)
>
>
> -- S=E9bastien.
>