Anonymous user
Talk:Respond to an unknown method call: Difference between revisions
Talk:Respond to an unknown method call (view source)
Revision as of 08:37, 7 November 2011
, 12 years ago→PicoLisp solution: new section
(They're officially omitted) |
(→PicoLisp solution: new section) |
||
Line 10:
: Don't remove, but mark them '''incorrect''', and include your reasoning. If you remove them, there's not much trace of why it was removed, and some editor who comes along and drops in a new example might make the same mistake. If someone fluent in the language then comes along and marks it with the Omit template, then that's that. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:: I've marked them both with the omit template on the basis that they clearly stated "we can't do this"; that's quite enough evidence for me to just apply the correction. Don't mind them being omitted. Do mind a grand kerfuffle while they decide that they've made an error and change to what they're supposed to do. And yes, I'm a bit irascible today; comes of dealing with too many telecons and not enough progress. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
== PicoLisp solution ==
-- Sorry, I don't get it. The examples *do* demonstrate how to respond to an unknown message. If 'try' does not succeed, you can take any other measure you like (as here sending some other (known) message to the object). You might also call some other function on that object if you like, but that's not the point. Please fix the code and remove this message.[[User:Abu|Abu]] (moved from main page)
: the current solution does not respond to the unknown method call, it merely does a different call if the unknown calls fail.
: a correct solution would let the call <code>(try 'message1> Obj)</code> be successful. and actually it shouldn't even need to use <code>(try)</code>, but it should be possible to directly call <code>(message1> Obj)</code> without error.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 08:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||