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".

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.