Lukas, Â 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