On Friday 22 February 2002 09:34 am, rallende at harlan.di.unc.edu.ar wrote:

> What fo you think about the mapping wich speaks meyer, ie. class = module.
[snip]
> Although we still believe that class = modules is not a bad idea, it's not
> closed topic for us, and any idea about it will help...

Modules (IMO) should be the unit of packaging/re-use. As such, a single class 
isn't big enough. Often you have several classes doing internal work, and one 
or more classes presenting an interface to the rest of the world. The UML 
"class category" is a more useful concept, and it's closer to the Modules 
scheme in Squeak 3.3.

Except that UML doesn't understand class extension (like DeltaModules).

I had lunch with Jim Rumbaugh at OOPSLA '97 and asked him why not. His 
response was something like "we're all C++ guys and we never heard of being 
able to do such a thing". So much for a "Universal Modeling Language".

-- 
Ned Konz
currently: Stanwood, WA
email:     ned at bike-nomad.com
homepage:  http://bike-nomad.com