Well, what I am saying is that I agree that people should not be bothered with this rule by QualityAssistant. But why we should remove the rule from the image?

Uko



On 17 Sep 2015, at 12:11, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:

yes the problem with rules comes when the rule add more noise than is helpful.
If you do not want to remove this rule because it is useful in some cases, maybe the rule could check only these specific situations to do not add noise in others.

Le 17 sept. 2015 � 10:37, Yuriy Tymchuk a �crit :

Ok, it can be removed from Pharo� I still find it useful as well as missing yourself, but I can keep track of then individually :)


On 17 Sep 2015, at 09:39, Peter Uhn�k <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:

You can probably remove it directly from Pharo instead

Peter

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Hi.

First of all: thank you for the feedback Damien!
It makes sense, the rule also has higher amount of negative feedback. I will remove it from QA, let it stay in the image, it actually can be useful.

Uko


> On 17 Sep 2015, at 06:49, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> This lint rule pops up all the times and my code is always ok. I
> typically have to reference an abstract class when:
>
> - the abstract class takes care of choosing the concrete class to
>  instantiate
>
> - the abstract class takes care of some shared variable for its
>  subclasses (e.g., a cache or an shared external object)
>
> I propose to remove this rule which has never been useful for me.
>
> --
> Damien Cassou
> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
>
> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without
> losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill
>