On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Nicolas Cellier < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >> > >> > > > > -- best, Eliot
