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