Re: nil is an object

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #110,858

by deSitter

7/22/03 10:07:10 AM

Re: nil is an object

Idea more like - send message to object you expect to appear later, and the messages are waiting when it finally shows up. Until then they are in limbo.

-drl

Post #110,873

by bluke

7/22/03 10:49:10 AM

Re: nil is an object

If your intermediate Object is smart enough to do that. nil being an Object is very useful, we had a project where we had to print reports, and a lot of the values (from the database) could be nil. We wrote our own print method in all our objects as well as nil. This way we didn't have to litter the code with var isNil ifTrue: [ print null], instead nil knew how to print itself correctly for our reports and we could just send teh same print method to every object.

Message Object Oriented vs Function Object Oriented - (JimWeirich) - (71) - July 21, 2003, 12:57:05 PM EDT

It's not so much a Language issue... - (ChrisR) - (28) - July 21, 2003, 01:30:46 PM EDT

Mind Games - (JimWeirich) - (27) - July 21, 2003, 03:35:18 PM EDT

The biggest difference is how one treats the interaction - (ChrisR) - (26) - July 21, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EDT

Now a Language Issue again - (JimWeirich) - (25) - July 21, 2003, 04:52:33 PM EDT

Is it "missing methods" or "invalid messages" it handles? - (CRConrad) - (23) - July 21, 2003, 05:04:43 PM EDT

Both. - (admin) - (22) - July 21, 2003, 05:08:28 PM EDT

Sorry, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. - (CRConrad) - (21) - July 21, 2003, 05:28:58 PM EDT

Needlessly pedantic, IMO. - (admin) - (20) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:53 PM EDT

OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (CRConrad) - (8) - July 21, 2003, 05:47:53 PM EDT

Lose the chip... -NT - (admin) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 05:49:48 PM EDT

OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?) -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:02:31 PM EDT

Suit yourself. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:03:29 PM EDT

You can do it (new thread) - (orion) - July 21, 2003, 07:41:37 PM EDT

FOO bad. MOO good. - (ChrisR) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:12:31 PM EDT

Mooooooo. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:16:14 PM EDT

Re: FOO bad. MOO good. - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:31:36 PM EDT

Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:35:39 PM EDT

Method VS Message - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 21, 2003, 06:42:26 PM EDT

Sure. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:56:59 PM EDT

Re: Method VS Message - (tuberculosis) - (8) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:37 AM EDT

Re: Method VS Message - (deSitter) - (7) - July 21, 2003, 11:42:24 PM EDT

Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed us? - (FuManChu) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 12:49:34 AM EDT

Re: Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed - (deSitter) - July 22, 2003, 12:59:53 AM EDT

In theory yes, in practice no - (bluke) - (4) - July 22, 2003, 06:01:52 AM EDT

You must cheat - but you must not get caught - (tuberculosis) - (3) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:33 AM EDT

Yes exactly - (bluke) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 10:31:22 AM EDT

Hmmm sounds as if - (Ashton) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 09:19:49 PM EDT

Not *so* clever - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:46 AM EDT

At that level, it is a language issue... - (ChrisR) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:00 PM EDT

DoesNotUnderstand - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:14 AM EDT

Reified Messages - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 06:50:52 PM EDT

Sounds about right to me -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:32 AM EDT

Re: DoesNotUnderstand - (deSitter) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 11:45:13 PM EDT

nil is an object -NT - (admin) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 08:04:50 AM EDT

Re: nil is an object - (deSitter) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 10:07:10 AM EDT

Re: nil is an object - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 10:49:10 AM EDT

ICLRPD - (static) - July 21, 2003, 10:53:46 PM EDT

It is a fundamental difference - (bluke) - (30) - July 22, 2003, 05:56:45 AM EDT

More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (9) - July 22, 2003, 06:28:12 AM EDT

Re: More Questions - (bluke) - (3) - July 22, 2003, 07:23:18 AM EDT

Re: More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 07:54:36 AM EDT

It relates more to the mindset - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:03:03 AM EDT

In past discussions with Freep... - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:52:34 AM EDT

Where does polymorphism fit in? - (static) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 08:42:30 AM EDT

Polymorphism via inheritance/interface - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EDT

Example - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:22 AM EDT

Re: Example - (JimWeirich) - July 22, 2003, 11:45:27 AM EDT

Statically Typed Smalltalk - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:29 AM EDT

Statically Typed MOO - (JimWeirich) - (19) - July 22, 2003, 10:41:22 AM EDT

The other possible avenue - (ChrisR) - (18) - July 22, 2003, 10:47:24 AM EDT

Do you know how they do that? - (bluke) - (17) - July 22, 2003, 10:54:10 AM EDT

Compiler generates the necessary calls - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 11:02:54 AM EDT

AspectJ is code generation - (tuberculosis) - (15) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:10 AM EDT

A comment and a question ... - (JimWeirich) - (12) - July 22, 2003, 02:19:07 PM EDT

Not really - (tuberculosis) - (11) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:27 AM EDT

Pushing the limits of Blanchard's Law - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 22, 2003, 03:57:21 PM EDT

I don't think the basic argument is so much - (ChrisR) - (8) - July 22, 2003, 04:09:32 PM EDT

Re: I don't think the basic argument is so much - (JimWeirich) - (7) - July 22, 2003, 04:35:10 PM EDT

Should probably let Todd defend his Laws....but.... :-) - (ChrisR) - (6) - July 22, 2003, 05:03:54 PM EDT

Still sounds arbitrary ... - (JimWeirich) - (5) - July 22, 2003, 05:14:31 PM EDT

On par with "Eval" - (ChrisR) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 05:20:45 PM EDT

Well said -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:08 AM EDT

No its not - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:13 AM EDT

Ok, I get it. - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:48:18 PM EDT

Yep -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:33 AM EDT

Oh yeah - (FuManChu) - July 22, 2003, 04:28:15 PM EDT

What is your reasoning for this "law"? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Sept. 21, 2003, 05:20:53 PM EDT

OT re: coming to this thread late - (drewk) - Sept. 22, 2003, 10:32:55 AM EDT

Litmus Test - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:03:41 AM EDT

Yes and No - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 07:34:46 AM EDT

Interesting comp.lang.smalltalk thread on this - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:16:51 AM EDT

iwethey.org

One shall be the number of Mojo Jojos in the world, and the number of Mojo Jojos in the world shall be one. Two Mojo Jojos is too many, and three is right out!
79 ms