Stefan Matthias Aust <sma at 3plus4.de> (and not I -- sorry) wrote...

>However, we should first agree upon a common format.

Here is a first crack at this, both as a template for criticism and suggestions, and as a piece of code you can try out.  I had some fun today trying to generate the structure with types automatically (that was the heh-heh), and, as type inference workers are used to saying, "It turned out to be harder than I thought." (*).

	- Dan

Here's the template...
-------------------
!ClassDescription methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'di 2/9/2000 17:54'!
comment
	"Answer the receiver's comment. (If missing, supply a template) "
	| aString |
	aString _ self theNonMetaClass organization classComment.
	aString isEmpty ifFalse: [^ aString].
	^
'Main comment stating the purpose of this class and relevant relationship to other classes.

Possible useful expressions for doIt or printIt.

Structure...
instvar1 		type -- comment about the purpose of instvar1
instvar2 		type -- comment about the purpose of instvar2

Any further useful comments about the general approach of this implementation.'
! !
--------------------
(*) Actually it was easy, it just didn't do quite as well as I had hoped.
If anyone is interested I can send you the code.
It collects all selectors sent to each instVar, and then computes the
union of highest classes that implement that full set.
I think that with info from stores, and possibly == tests, it would do a lot better.