RBAbstractClass>>isAbstract

> Lukas,  do you think the second statement in this method could be removed, it would take a lot less time to know if a class is abstract.
>
> RBAbstractClass>>isAbstract
>        (self whichSelectorsReferToSymbol: #subclassResponsibility) isEmpty
>                ifFalse: [^true].
>        model allReferencesToClass: self do: [:each | ^false].
>        ^true
>
> I know it would change the definition of what is an abstract class for RB, but i'm just wondering if this is ok:
>
> "A Class is abstract if it defines a subclassResponsibility method and no other classes reference it"
>
> The second clause in my opinion could be avoided.

>> Lukas,  do you think the second statement in this method could be removed, it would take a lot less time to know if a class is abstract.
>>
>> RBAbstractClass>>isAbstract
>>        (self whichSelectorsReferToSymbol: #subclassResponsibility) isEmpty
>>                ifFalse: [^true].
>>        model allReferencesToClass: self do: [:each | ^false].
>>        ^true
>>
>> I know it would change the definition of what is an abstract class for RB, but i'm just wondering if this is ok:
>>
>> "A Class is abstract if it defines a subclassResponsibility method and no other classes reference it"
>>
>> The second clause in my opinion could be avoided.
>
> Just recently I looked at that definition too. It is a bit strange.
> Also given that it only looks for #subclassResponsibility in the class
> itself and not in the superclasses.
>
> Unfortunately changing anything breaks some tests. As discussed
> previously there is not a single definition of an abstract class, so
> maybe it is best if you add your own domain-specific implementation of
> #isAbstract.
>
> Lukas
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project