Lukas I'm not that against the idea proposed by alex. I think that knowing that a class is abstract is important to have and this is not because Smalltalk original language was weak that we could not define now a clear definition. I do not like the definition of RB people because I have class that are not abstract and that are not referenced because I just did not load the package that use them. Now if magritte needed to know that a class should show up in a UI then may be it should be called differently because an abstract class is clearly a class that we should/cannot instantiate. If you take ***any*** book on OOP this is a basic concept.
Stef On Oct 28, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >>> What would be your isAbstract be useful for? >> >> To know whether it is wise to instantiate a class or not > > That would be a pure guess then. Presumably you will still have to > look at the implementation, at the documentation, at its users or > study the coding conventions of the project to know for sure what to > do with the thing. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
