this is why there is a or in my expression and this is why I still would like to have a way to declare a class as abstract even if it does not have abstract methods. stef On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
A class is said to be abstract if its not reasonable to instantiate it. An abstract class may perfectly have no abstract method.
Cheers, Alexandre
On 5 Oct 2008, at 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I would really like to have a way to specify that a class is abstract. For example I would like to be able to write a test as follow
self assert: (Collection allSubclasses reject: [:each each isAbstract ]) new isEmpty
now saying that isAbstract is if a class has one method sending subclassResponsibility is not really good for me.
May be we could have something like
isAbstract
^ self declaredAsAbstract or: [ (self whichSelectorsReferToSymbol: #subclassResponsibility) isEmpty not]
Stef
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project