Ok, that's what i've did. Just wanted to check if somebody else also found weird that definition.
Thanks Lukas, Fernando On Feb 11, 2010, at 12:14 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >> Lukas, do you think the second statement in this method could be removed, >> it would take a lot less time to know if a class is abstract. >> >> RBAbstractClass>>isAbstract >> (self whichSelectorsReferToSymbol: #subclassResponsibility) isEmpty >> ifFalse: [^true]. >> model allReferencesToClass: self do: [:each | ^false]. >> ^true >> >> I know it would change the definition of what is an abstract class for RB, >> but i'm just wondering if this is ok: >> >> "A Class is abstract if it defines a subclassResponsibility method and no >> other classes reference it" >> >> The second clause in my opinion could be avoided. > > Just recently I looked at that definition too. It is a bit strange. > Also given that it only looks for #subclassResponsibility in the class > itself and not in the superclasses. > > Unfortunately changing anything breaks some tests. As discussed > previously there is not a single definition of an abstract class, so > maybe it is best if you add your own domain-specific implementation of > #isAbstract. > > 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
