2011/9/14 Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]>: > 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
s/type/typo/ > > Nicolas > >> >>> >>> > Cheers, >>> > Alexandre >>> > -- >>> > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >> >
