Avi Bryant wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Julian Fitzell wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>>How about "MessageNotUnderstood: someSelector (SomeClass)"?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I think I slightly prefer "SomeClass MessageNotUnderstood:
>>>someSelector".  But I like Julian's suggestion too.  Somebody pick one! ;-)
>>>      
>>>
>>I like Doug's!  It seems good to have MessageNotUnderstood in there
>>since people recognize that.  But having the class after the method
>>feels odd.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, then how about "MessageNotUnderstood: SomeClass>>someSelector"?
>That's a little more "standard".
>  
>

This sounds good to me.  I was thinking of this earlier as another 
alternative, and it sounds like it wouldn't require changing the way 
#messageText and #description work, as you say.

- Doug

>The problem with doing anything that's not in the form
>"MessageNotUnderstood: %s" is that currently (in 3.5, and in 3.6 with my
>FIX) that text comes from two places: MessageNotUnderstood>>messageText
>(which returns the name of the selector) and Exception>>description (which
>provides the "MessageNotUnderstood: " part).  So having
>MessageNotUnderstood in the middle of the description doesn't make sense.
>
>  
>