On 12.08.2010, at 23:42, Lawson English wrote:

> On 8/12/10 12:20 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> On 12.08.2010, at 20:48, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> On 8/12/2010 10:44 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
>>>     
>>>> So the file in had actually worked just fine, but at this point deleted
>>>> all the instance methods that had just been created. This might cause
>>>> problems for others, but I didn't call it a "bug" since each part is
>>>> correct in itself. Perhaps there should be a warning for 1? I imagine
>>>> that would be annoying and even scary when loading stuff out of order.
>>>>       
>>> What do you think about implementing ProtoObject class>>initialize as an empty stub? This would act as a backstop for situations like these.
>>>     
>> It should not be empty but an error message "Never send initialize to super on the class side!"
>> 
>>   
> 
> I  wanted to create a universal dictionary  in my class and populate it with default values and didn't want to miss initializing anything higher in the hierarchy. I can see what this isn't the best thing to do since presumably all the rest of the hierarchy's classes have already been initialized anyway. What is the proper (or at least better) pattern for what I want to do?

Just initialize the class you want. Do not send to super. Class initializers are executed manually only anyway (e.g. when you freshly load a class into a system).

- Bert -