On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:35:06AM +0100, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum scribbled:
I'm explaining the intended interpretation to you, as you asked me to do. It has nothing to do with opinion, nor with weaponry.
It wasn't me who raised the flame. I appreciate your explanation and I took the liberty to oppose it to mine. Which is equally as valid as yours - that proved the message is ambiguous.
If you want opinions, presenting alternative wordings to have options about would be a good place to start. I see you have suggested one already, my opinion on that one is that it's a bit long; do you think you could make it a bit shorter without compromising your clarity goal?
I think so. Let's try this:
Bad parameter... bla bla. Expected an object containing the _m_delete method.
perhaps use 'implementing' instead of 'containing'.
marek