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 <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alexandre Bergel < alexandre.bergel@me.com> 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