2011/9/14 Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]>: > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 13 September 2011 19:52, 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 >> > >> > Does it make sense? >> > >> >> yes > > > Why? It doesn't for me. A method defined as ^ self subclassResponsibility > is "abstract" from my point of view. >
See Eliot's mail, he already noticed the inversion. It's just a copy/paste type, the inbox/SLICE seems correct Nicolas > >> >> > Cheers, >> > Alexandre >> > -- >> > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >
