I assume most people coming from other languages will likely search for
"not yet implemented" when they want to leave such a marker.

Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 29. Jan. 2020, 03:24:

> Hi Christoph,
>
> #subclassResponsibility is part of standard Smalltalk.
>
> I think #notYetImplemented and #shouldBeImplemented are "code markers"
> indicating a to-do item and, yes, do seem a bit too ambiguous.  Perhaps we
> should replace all #notYetImplemented with #shouldBeImplemented...
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 7:21 AM Thiede, Christoph <
> Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bert, but then, what is the difference between
>> #shouldBeImplemented and #subclassResponsibility?
>>
>> And if I understand you correctly, the method stub created by a debugger
>> should rather insert a #notYetImplemented than a #shouldBeImplemented,
>> shouldn't it?
>>
>> Best,
>> Christoph
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *Von:* Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im
>> Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 01:13:10
>> *An:* The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> *Betreff:* Re: [squeak-dev] #shouldBeImplemented vs #notYetImplemented
>>
>> If a class has a method sending #shouldBeImplemented, then subclasses are
>> supposed to override that method, without modifying the superclass method.
>> It basically marks that class as abstract.
>>
>> In contrast, #notYetImplemented indicates that the method itself should
>> be modified, replacing the #notYetImplemented send with the actual code.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:10 AM Thiede, Christoph <
>> Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> what exactly is the intended difference between #shouldBeImplemented and
>>> #notYetImplemented? It feels a bit confusing.
>>>
>>> I have always used #shouldBeImplemented only because it is predefined by
>>> the Debugger.
>>> But today I met #notYetImplemented and now wonder which one I should
>>> use:
>>> <http://www.hpi.de/>
>>>
>>>    - Both are detected by the debugger
>>>    - But #notYetImplemented has its own subclass implementation of
>>>    NotImplemented which handles #receiverClass and #selector. I like this, it
>>>    has a bit more object-orientation appeal.
>>>    - The names don't give me an indication to any semantical difference
>>>    - They are not in the same message category of Object at all!
>>>    - #shouldBeImplemented raises a specific error message, while that
>>>    one of #notYetImplemented is generic and less precise
>>>    - But why does the #shouldBeImpleemented message mention "or a
>>>    superclass should implement"? Given the subclass Bar of the
>>>    superclass Foo and I compile '#baz ^self shouldBeImplemented' on Bar. Why
>>>    should this indicate that #baz might have to implemented on Foo instead?
>>>    - Btw, we also have Object >> #required, which looks more Trait
>>>    specific. Is it a problem that Tools-Debugger depends on Traits via this
>>>    selector?
>>>
>>>
>>> However, I think we might have some heterogenic duplication here, or at
>>> least miss any documentation of the differences. Can you tell me more about
>>> the history of both selectors? Should we try to merge them?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200129/01c42d95/attachment.html>