The definition of what is considered an abstract class/method highly depends on the point of view. Therefor I have repeatedly argued that it is a very bad idea to have ClassDescription>>#isAbstractClass, Class>>#isAbstractClass, MetaClass>>isAbstractClass, and CompiledMethod>>#isAbstract. I don't see any users of these methods in my image, everybody correctly implements his own.
Lukas On 13 September 2011 20:32, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alexandre Bergel < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Apparently, the following method is abstract: >> >> ArrayedCollection>>add: newObject >> self shouldNotImplement >> >> If I evaluate: >> (ArrayedCollection>>#add:) isAbstract => true >> >> This is not quite right. A method that is cancelled is not abstract. >> >> I propose to change >> CompiledMethod>>abstractMarkers >> ^ #(subclassResponsibility shouldNotImplement) >> >> into >> CompiledMethod>>abstractMarker >> ^ #shouldNotImplement >> > > CompiledMethod>>abstractMarker > ^ #subclassResponsibility > no? > > >> Does it make sense? >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > best, > Eliot > > -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
