On 19.08.2009, at 22:53, Simon Michael wrote:

> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> ... because its purpose is to keep a class organized. It inherits  
>> the  ability to categorize and extends it with class specifics.  
>> What's  wrong with that?
>
> Well, I just heard you say "The ClassOrganizer subclass only extends  
> this with class comments". I guess I misunderstood. If I read more  
> code I can find out for sure. *Something* seems unclear with either  
> the class names or the existing class comment in these three:
>
>  Categorizer
>   BasicClassOrganizer
>    ClassOrganizer
>
> I think the second is actually the one that deals with class  
> comments. (How apropos that I picked these..)
>
> Well, right now I'd comment these something like so:
>
> Categorizer: I represent an easily-manageable association of  
> category names to element objects. See my documentation method for  
> more.
>
> BasicClassOrganizer: I represent a Class which has a comment and a  
> category. (Move most of existing ClassOrganizer comment here.)
>
> ClassOrganizer: I represent a Class whose category can be easily  
> managed.


Well, yes, BasicClassOrganizer was introduced relatively recently  
(that is, in the last 10 years, not 30 years ago) to hold the code  
common to regular and pseudo classes. The comments might not reflect  
that.

- Bert -