correction... with apologies:

The word "not" is missing from the first line of the second paragraph  
illustrated below.

On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:28 AM, Cameron Sanders wrote:

> A second example in my code addresses what is mentioned below. But  
> for this aspect, I know that all of the candidate objects were  
> defined under a certain tree that implements a #canCompute: method,  
> or that objects wishing to be substituted will implement the method.  
> That way I don't have to worry about how it is implemented (e.g.  
> #doesNotUnderstand:) and whether it will be in the method dictionary.
>
> So... obviously, "existing" objects can be substituted... but now I  
> am re-thinking the generality of these objects. Perhaps I can loosen  
> this constraint -- even though I am not convinced it would ever  
> matter for my situation. (Mine are FinancialAnalyst objects that  
> know how to operate on my set of financial data keys.)