[squeak-dev] Re: Object>>#is:? (was: Re: PackageDependencyTest)

Stéphane Rollandin lecteur at zogotounga.net
Thu Mar 4 21:12:21 UTC 2010

> Same as before. The only classes that should ever know about the concept
> of what your uncle likes are those in package MyUncle. The current
> implementation in Morph is perfectly good for that. If used properly,
> this actually decreases the need for overrides. No method in Morph, in
> any package, should know about your uncle or your cup of tea.

Ok, I see. We actually have different ideas about software design :)

That's ok, then. If there is a consensus that good Smalltalk design is 
like you say (extension methods should be avoided, etc.) then I have 
nothing to object. I will just continue silently in my own, parallel style.

> I guess you meant 'implementors'

yes :)

> you just ask for senders of #Beautiful and you get an exact answer,
> without any spurious classes answering false.

hmm.. by doing this you just load the mere presence of a Symbol in a 
method source with a new semantic charge. I don't like this very much... 
but again, it's a matter of taste in design.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list