Lukas Renggli <reng...@...> writes: > > In that case, we could have isAbstractClass or something else. I feel > > this information is important. > > What would be your isAbstract be useful for? > > - SUnit will still have to implement its own #isAbstract to decide if > a class should be runnable or just provide test templates. > - Pier will still have to implement its own #isAbstract to decide if a > class should show up in the GUI. > - Magritte will still have to implement its own #isAbstract to decide > if an arbitrary class can be instantiated from the GUI. > - ...
Looks to me like these are application specific definitions of abstractness. Why not name them #isAbstractTest, #isAbstractComponent et cetera? While in the same time, there is a system-wide notion of abstract classes for which the generic #isAbstract should be reserver. NB, I am making this injection in the hope to disentangle to issue of method naming from the issue of the exact implementation of a general #isAbstract method (on which I agree with Lukas that it should be chosen carefully). cheers, AA _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
