This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Widefox(talk | contribs) at 10:44, 13 March 2019(Assessment: Computing: class=C, importance=Low, software=y, software-importance=Low; +Microsoft: class=C, importance=Low (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 10:44, 13 March 2019 by Widefox(talk | contribs)(Assessment: Computing: class=C, importance=Low, software=y, software-importance=Low; +Microsoft: class=C, importance=Low (assisted))
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
"Since in dynamic languages, the type of an object, as well as the members it contain, can change during a program lifetime, a method invocation must search through the method list to see if the invocation is a valid one."
Yep, any kind of lookup (given something find something else) is "searching through". Since you cannot do method invocation without looking up in dynamic languages, how you do the lookup is the key to an efficient implementation. --soumtalk12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think inhahe's question concerns the language nuance of "search through". The phrase suggests a linear search. How about "... a method invocation must check the method list ..." Leotohill (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply