On 2003-11-20T16:42:04-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote: > I don't find that an acceptable solution as it would be inconvenient in > the extreme to have to implement a respondsToX for every possible X. If > you're saying the existence of a generic respondsTo: method doesn't > work in with ST, then I 'd say that's an example of how DT is more > flexible and powerful. I didn't mean to imply that you actually need to implement a respondsToX method for every possible method X; I was just trying to simplify the exposition (and apparently failing). I wouldn't even know how to formally define what "a generic respondsTo: method" and "doesn't work in with ST" mean, let alone prove a claim involving them. Regardless, I don't see any obvious obstacle in implementing respondsToX (for all X at once) on top of a statically typed encoding of object orientation. -- Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig http://www.thismodernworld.com/ "vi has two modes: one where it beeps and one where it doesn't"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature