> On 19 Mar 2015, at 14:44, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> So now in the image the remnants from the old DelayScheduler have been
> cleaned up by making it abstract with several methods becoming
> "subclassResponsibility".
>
> Would it be a reasonable practice to group these in a protocol "subclass
> responsibility" to make it easier to determine what is needed for concrete
> subclasses? Or maybe append "subclass responsibility" to the original
> protocol of such methods?
>
no, normally this is not done… sometimes I wish we would have tags on methods
instead of protocols. Then we could do both.
Marcus
