Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!news!dbuck
From: dbuck@infoweb.magi.com (David Buck)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk terminology - Object, Class, and Instance
Sender: news@magi.com
Message-ID: <DAuzBE.5JH@magi.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:11:38 GMT
References: <3shvfp$l9k@portal.gmu.edu> <altinbayDAu4qq.LpF@netcom.com> <NEWTNews.804276785.29293.sellers@sellers.sellers.com> <DAuMF2.331@mv.mv.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: infoweb.magi.com
Organization: Magi Data Consulting
Lines: 20

In article <DAuMF2.331@mv.mv.com>, L. M. Rappaport <rapp@lmr.mv.com> wrote:
>John Sellers <sellers@sellers.com> wrote:
>
>>Close, actually ALMOST everything is an object.  In most 
>>implementations, messages are not objects.
>
>It is my impression that in Digitalk Smalltalk (at least) a message is
>also an instance of the class MESSAGE.  Is that incorrect?

I believe that a message only becomes a message object if that message 
isn't understood by the interpreter.  At that point, a message object is 
created and passed as a parameter to the doesNotUnderstand: method.

It would be too inefficient to allocate a Message object on every message 
send.

David Buck
dbuck@magi.com
The Object People

