On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:

2013/7/21 Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com>

Yes, but where are the guarantees that you don't?
Just think from outsider's point of view: when he sees

�Announcer subclass: #Foo

what he will think first:
�- aha, this guy implements own kind of announcer
or
�- aha this guy reusing announcer
or
�- aha, this guy doing both things at the same time (a worst possible
alternative)

and how many abuses like that, he should see before making a logical conclusion:
�- aha.. this is the way how i should do as well.

Interesting how many people in this list think that "Announcer subclass: #TxEditor" provides special implementation of announcer named TxEditor?

Many�

this is composition using inheritance and inheritance should not be used like that.�

Announcer subclass: #GreedyAnnouncer

Announcer subclass: #RemoteAnnouncer

Are quite different from�

Announcer subclass: #Customer

This is not because subclassing can be used that we should do it.

We suffer during years from�

Dictionary subclass: #Set

and other beauties.

Because to me it is not practical design issues when we talk about subclassing Announcer.