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.