On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Bergel Alexandre wrote:

> Hello
>
> > What fo you think about the mapping wich speaks meyer, ie. class =
> module.
>
> Humm, I do not understand "class == module". A class is *already* a
> namespace for methods defined under it.

sorry... Meyer says:
Meyer> A class is a module, or unit of software decomposition; but it is
Meyer> also a type (or, in cases involving genericity, a type pattern).

after the example of a point class (x,y, etc), he says:
Meyer> How the module-type merge works
Meyer>  The facilities provided by class POINT, viewed as a module, are
Meyer>  precisely the operations available on instances of class POINT,
Meyer>  viewed as a type.

from
Object-Oriented Software Construction, Second Edition
B. Meyer

> > I'm doing a project for soft-engineering (undergraduate course)
following
> > structured desing and we have problems when we want to see our modules
> > implemented in smalltalk.
>
> Actually, Java packages are a subset of Squeak Modules. If you can do
what you need in Java, you could do that
> easily with Squeak.

ok, but we came from a smalltalk pseudocode, not from java. We have some
problems to match some traditional principles/concepts with oo software
and the books that we readed don't help us very much (i think we didn't
read enough.... ). It was not our choice make a
design not fully oo. In our soft eng course we followed books as Ghezzi
and Somerville and, from there we made a design... with my classmates we
tried to make an implementation oo.... then it's true if you say that our
design is more hybrid than oo... but our implementation it's not... (at
least is what we wanted)  but we need to match our
design with our implemementation.

sorry if it's a soft eng disussion... and maybe we've to speak
somewhere else... but we need some help from a "smalltalker/squeak"
view...


thanks
r.