From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: David Hanley Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <32EE8415.2F5B@netright.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212840605 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> <32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net> <5bvncj$gqg$1@A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu> <32E47B4B.56D9@concentric.net> <32E4E6E1.437E@dstsystems.com> <32E8C18F.354B@sdrc.com> <32ECF63D.5EB@netright.com> <32EE2FEE.62FE@p content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: netright technologies mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: david_nospam@netright.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I) Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Eric Clayberg wrote: > > David Hanley wrote: > > So smalltalk will happily pass a message to the nill object, and the > > progrm will chug along just fine? > > Most the most part, yes. The nil object is just like any other object in > the system. It is also the default placeholder for any uninitialized > variables. There are lots of examples where sending messages to nil or > passing nil as an argument is just fine. There are losts of cases in C/C++,java,etc where passing null as an argment is just fine as well. > It is only when you send a > message to nil that it does not expect that you have a problem. No kidding. I still don't understand your implication that it is ok, and has somethin to do with dynamic typing. > Even > then, it depends upon what kind of exception handlers the developer has > set up whether the program will chug along just fine or simply report > the error, write an error log and halt the program (in any case, a core > dump is rarely the outcome). So are you under the impression that ST is the only language that can trap null pointer writes? And what exactly does this have to do with static and dynamic typing? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Hanley, Software Developer, NetRight technologies. My employer pays me for my opinions; nonetheless he does not share all of them E-mail address munged to defeat automailers, Delete _nospam