[Better comment initiative] AnnotationType

> FamixAnnotationType and FamixAnnotationInstance are defined in Famix.Core,
> so in theory they should be independent of any language. Here is the comment
> from AnnotationIstance
> AnnotationInstance is an instance of an AnnotationType. It links an
> AnnotationType to an actual entity.
> For example, the following is an AnnotationInstance in Java:
> @Test(Timeout = 500)
> This model fits java but not smalltalk pragmas. So is it ok to keep in Famix
> core?
> thanx
> Nicolas and Usman
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>

> This model fits both Smalltalk pragmas and Java annotations and thus
> these entities should be in the core. Now the Smalltalk importer
> actually populates these entities and it works just fine.
>
> The comment states that it talks about an example. We can add one for
> Smalltalk as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> FamixAnnotationType and FamixAnnotationInstance are defined in Famix.Core,
>> so in theory they should be independent of any language. Here is the comment
>> from AnnotationIstance
>> AnnotationInstance is an instance of an AnnotationType. It links an
>> AnnotationType to an actual entity.
>> For example, the following is an AnnotationInstance in Java:
>> @Test(Timeout = 500)
>> This model fits java but not smalltalk pragmas. So is it ok to keep in Famix
>> core?
>> thanx
>> Nicolas and Usman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> "Every thing has its own flow"
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev