<p>This is a followup to <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/284428/avoiding-property-itis-ie-overuse-of-properties-when-are-they-appropriate">Avoiding @property-itis</a>.</p>

<p>UIWebView has the following property declarations:</p>

<pre><code>@property(nonatomic,readonly,getter=canGoBack) BOOL canGoBack;
@property(nonatomic,readonly,getter=canGoForward) BOOL canGoForward;
</code></pre>

<p>UIScrollView has these:</p>

<pre><code>@property(nonatomic) BOOL canCancelContentTouches;
</code></pre>

<p>Yet, UIResponder has </p>

<pre><code>- (BOOL)isFirstResponder;
- (BOOL)canBecomeFirstResponder;
- (BOOL)canResignFirstResponder;
</code></pre>

<p>Is the UIResponder case one where they should have been declared as properties, but, for whatever reason, were not?</p>

<p>Or is it a case where declaring them as properties was inappropriate? If inappropriate, why?</p>

My best guess is that UIResponder is meant to match NSResponder, which of course was designed before Objective-C 2.0 introduced properties. Why UIWebView doesn't do the same with regard to WebView, I don't know. I'd expect properties in Cocoa to be a little schizophrenic in this way for some time, and I wouldn't think into it too much when considering your own code.