[squeak-dev] Re: Object>>#is:? (was: Re: PackageDependencyTest)
tonyg at lshift.net
Sun Mar 7 06:27:39 UTC 2010
Eliot Miranda wrote:
> If is: is about protocol not inheritance (a position I would support)
> then is: is a very bad selector. canUnderstand: and respondsTo: taken.
> supports: has applications in civil engineering simulations. What
> about comprehends:? "Too long" you say; "is: is neat and short" you
> say. But it is also hopelessly ambiguous. What about groks: ? ;)
#provides: ? #implements: ? #hasProtocol: ?
More information about the Squeak-dev