> I'm not that against the idea proposed by alex. I am not against it either.
> 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. My complaint is more against: - Why is it useful, if the information is a pure guess and depends on what the author thinks is abstract? - Why should it be added to the core, if it is not used by anything it the core? Who would be using it? > 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. True, but the definition of Alex is no better. He made up an implementation that is useful in one of his contexts, but it certainly isn't applicable everywhere. Also there might be people that consider classes that send #requirement, #explicitRequirement, or #shouldBeImplemented as abstract. Cheers, 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
