Talk:Respond to an unknown method call: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (I didn't omit it...Dkf did) |
(Omit is exactly right for some languages) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:That means they are statically defined without means for dynamic type resolution, so omit. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
:That means they are statically defined without means for dynamic type resolution, so omit. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Java was omitted for that reason. That seems like a good solution. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
:Java was omitted for that reason. That seems like a good solution. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Note that Java has the opposite operation — the ability to dispatch to an existing method that you don't know at compile time — through its reflection classes, and it's actually very useful for me as I tend to write dynamic code in any language. I need to check whether there's a task to allow people to write about their language's ability to introspect its objects/classes to discover what methods are available and dispatch to them, but that's not ''this'' task; this task is about those languages which allow objects to accept any message if they wish (some like this, some don't; it's a philosophical thing). —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||