Anonymous user
Talk:Respond to an unknown method call: Difference between revisions
Talk:Respond to an unknown method call (view source)
Revision as of 02:47, 8 November 2011
, 12 years ago→PicoLisp solution: strike the last question
(→PicoLisp solution: wrong function name) |
(→PicoLisp solution: strike the last question) |
||
Line 48:
:::::: this would provide the ability to only have specific classes respond to unknown method calls, or have different classes give different responses.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, this would work. I avoided a definte class here for generality, but this would make sense for a common superclass. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: well, personally i think that the general case is not really interesting. the ''usual'' (for my understanding of usual) case is to use this for proxy or dispatch classes. that is, a specialized class that represents arbitrary objects in a remote system. so while every other class is normal, this one accepts any message and forwards that message to a different object or remote system. describing the special case for picoLisp would be interesting in contrast to common lisp where such a specialized case is not possible with CLOS without creating a <code>(send)</code> function (i don't know if <code>(call)</code> can be redefined), or adding the checks inside the generic function or <code>(no-applicable-method)</code> because the generic function there is called for any object. <del>btw: is it possible to call an unknown method as <code>(i-do-not-exist> Obj)</code> or is it necesary to use <code>(try)</code> or <code>(send)</code>?</del>(answer is of course [[Send an unknown method call#PicoLisp|here]])--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||