lothar.schenk at gmx.de
Mon Dec 15 17:01:50 UTC 2003
Am Montag, 15. Dezember 2003 18:29 schrieb Hannes Hirzel:
> Hello Lothar
> > Why is it 'unarguably' good style to fill abstract methods with the line
> > "self subclassResponsibility"?
> 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
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. :)
"Walk this world with me"
More information about the Squeak-dev