Talk:Respond to an unknown method call: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Some contributions are wrong and stupidly so, so will squelch) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::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) |
::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) |
||
I see that some languages are putting in how they do errors when you try to do an unknown method. This is wrong! The object must have a chance to respond to a method call (or message) which it doesn't know the name/topic of ahead of time. Throwing an error at compile time is the total antithesis of this. I'm going to go through and remove all the contributions by people who have obviously "not got it". –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||