The second interpretation is unlikely since it doesn't make sense in the given context. Before this it hasn't even occurred to me that it can be read that way. But go ahead and rephrase the message if you like.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-02-10 23:36: Subject: Re: Implicit vs. explicit type casting with Pike
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:20:06PM +0100, Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS @ Pike developers forum scribbled:
_m_delete() is to m_delete() as _indices() is to indices(). So _m_delete is the function that the object has to implement for m_delete to work on it. It doesn't matter whether it implements a function m_delete or not. Thus the missing function in the object is _m_delete. The object is passed as the first argument to m_delete. Therefore the error message in m_delete says that the object in the first argument lacks an _m_delete. It does that in a clear and concise way, imo.
Well, I beg to differ. And it is ambiguous not only to my feeble mind. It can mean either what you said above (provided that one knows what the _indices and _values functions are for) or it may mean that the _m_delete function expects an object to be passed to it. That's the whole matter.
marek
/ Brevbäraren