Expected object with _m_delete method
are more clear than
Expected object with _m_delete
I'd say these sentences are fully equivalent. Taken out of context, both are equally susceptible to misinterpretation. If you interpret the second as "_m_delete should be called with an object" then there is no reason why you wouldn't interpret the first as "the _m_delete method should be called with an object".
Grendels abbreviated proposal is much better since it avoids using the "w-word" altogether, thus removing the source of the confusion.
/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)
Previous text:
2003-02-11 02:03: Subject: Re: Implicit vs. explicit type casting with Pike
Well, in all honesty, it is a bit unclear if thought of as a general sentence.
Expected _m_delete method in object or Expected object with _m_delete method
are more clear than
Expected object with _m_delete
which can be read as "Expected and object to be passed to the _m_delete method", although it would (also) be a very odd way to write that statement. Clarifying that an object with the _method_ _m_delete is wanted, is not a bad idea (same thing goes for other methods which would give a similar method (_indices/_values/_sprintf don't apply since they have a default behavior already and thus don't throw that particular error).
/ David Hedbor