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

Tony Garnock-Jones 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 mailing list