Am Montag, 15. Dezember 2003 18:29 schrieb Hannes Hirzel:

> Hello Lothar

Hello Hannes

> Question:
> > Why is it 'unarguably' good style to fill abstract methods with the line
> > "self subclassResponsibility"?
>
> Answer:
> Because this is an idiomatic convention in the Smalltaker subculture to
> define a method as abstract; see Kent Becks book about Smalltalk idioms.

I know that. But, "because that's the way we do it (always did it)" or 
"because Kent Beck says so" is not an argument.

> The point ot Nathanael is that he likes the system to have a way of
> distinguishing between abstract and non-abstract methods. 

Is there an intrinsic property of a method which can be used to distinguish 
between an abstract and a non-abstract method?

> In general OO software engineering circle the distinction between
> abstract and non-abstract methods is considered to be a valuable
> distinction.

I'm not arguing against the usefulness of this distinction. I am, however, 
arguing that abstract methods and their nonabstract counterparts should 
express the same basic semantic content.

So, is "self subclassResponsibility" a formulation of the abstract semantics 
of a given method, e.g. the closing of a stream?

> Lothar, I really do not see your point.

I see. :)

Lothar

"Walk this world with me"