I guess I could have added additional constraints "and the missing method is called from a method on the "abstract class", and the missing method is defined on subclasses", but I thought that implicit from the context :)
To me, an abstract class is one you either can't instatiate (through overriding new), or one containing methods which delegate to methods implemented by subclasses, so it makes no sense to use instances of the class itself. The use case is addressed at the method level, yes, but it *is* for the typical meaning associated with a class being abstract, at least to me. Cheers, Henry Tudor Girba-2 wrote > This is a use case that is addressed at the level of the method, not of a > class. > > I see the issue similarly to Stef: as I can utilize a class, it has little > meaning to call it abstract. A missing method has a different meaning from > the typical meaning associated with a class being abstract. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Apr 1, 2019, at 10:54 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen < > henrik.s.johansen@ > > wrote: >> >> Tim Mackinnon wrote >>> Calypso warns you about missing methods if it doesn’t understand a class >>> is abstract, so it’s useful to avoid those warnings otherwise you become >>> desensitised to them. >>> >>> Tim >> >> Or, if the class has subclasses, one could get a suggestion/action to >> implement the missing method as >> missingMethod >> ^self subclassResponsibility >> >> Which also has the benefit of working nicely with the "expected (or was >> that >> "missing"?) protocol" functionality. >> Unless you meant something else? >> >> Cheers, >> Henry >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html >> > > -- > www.feenk.com > > "Problem solving should be focused on describing > the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
