On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:37:55 +0200, David Goehrig wrote:

...
> MessageNotUnderstood
> is an implementation detail, and does not correspond to the semantics of  
> the
> statement.  It is a literal  non sequitur.  This is doubly true in the  
> case
> of methods which merely test for a capability.  If the object doesn't
> understand, then it clearly doesn't have the stated capability! Res ipso
> loquitur.
>
> So from my point of view, the current system behavior, while useful for
> debugging, doesn't match the programmer's explicit semantics.

You just want this? result = (anObject.methodName ? methodName() : false)

?

/Klaus

> Additionally
> there is an entire class of application, ones that consist of lots of
> distributed and unique objects, in which the existing class based objects
> become a de-optimization. These apps are typically only implementable by
> rolling your own objects by hand, and attaching a custom
> doesNotUnderstand:aMessage handler to each.  But that's a post for  
> another
> time.
>

-- 
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it".
Albert Einstein