On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:45:08PM +0100, Niels Möller () @ Pike (-) developers forum scribbled:
No, it's talking about an *object*, and that object is expected to have the _m_delete attribute. And it didn't, which was the error.
Quote: "Expected object with _m_delete"
This is getting boring. Do you have a better wording for that error
yes, it is getting boring to try to get anything changed - even that simple as that.
message to suggest? Please spell it out. If not can we *please* stop this thread now?
yes, I have. Because the above is ambiguous for anybody not familiar with the guts of the code. How about
"Expected to find the _m_delete method in the passed object"
doesn't that sound a tad bit clearer? The original wording made me think until your mail that it was talking about a function called _m_delete - and I am not a newbie (maybe I'm not too bright, but people like that also write some code - most of them in visual basic, but I'm stubborn)
(And I'm particularly annoyed that you can't simply say "ooops, didn't read that carefully enough, I understand now" without starting an
I do understand only NOW. And only now I can say it.
boring discussion about how some hypothetical newbie is supposedly being confused by the error message. I've seen that and similar argument too often, and it's almost always totally irrelevant).
Nobody is forcing you to read the boring thread and, especially, to contribute to it. If you are reading the boring discussion it means nothing better to do. That's your problem, not mine. And I'm sick and tired of crappy arguments like yours above. You can start flaming now.
marek