Re: Squeak 3.8/3.9 and Behavior class new

> In my subclass of ClassDescription I currently am forced to  
> override #new on the class side :-(
>
> Does anything speak against NOT having any #new, #new:, etc, never
> +ever on the *class* side of Behavior(s)?
>
> Best regards,
> Klaus
>
> P.S. Thank you Daniel for your insightful response.
>
> ------- Forwarded message -------
> From: "Daniel Vainsencher" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Squeak 3.8/3.9 and Behavior class new
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:11:59 +0200
>
> Hi Klaus!
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't help you.
>
> If you look at the versions, you'll see that Stef Ducasse saved the
> exact same code before me, so maybe he'll know. My guess is that my  
> name
> is only there because of code-moving operations needed during  
> traits. If
> you're not doing so, I would recommend you use the traits browser when
> working with the kernel code, otherwise you have no way of knowing
> whether the Behavior>>new is actually composed in from a Traits (quite
> likely, though I didn't check).
>
> If you don't know how to install the Traits browser, ask on the list,
> I'm sure there are others that don't, and someone that does.
>
> Daniel
>
> Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> found your initials in the Behavior class #new method.  
>> Unfortunately this behavior (Behavior class's behavior, I mean)  
>> cannot be overridded except by overriding #new (which many people,  
>> including me, are reluctant to do). I created a subclass of  
>> ClassDescription and was wondering *where* instances of my class  
>> where initialized and it took me a while to realize it was hacked  
>> into #new on the class side of Behavior.
>>
>> Does anything speak against moving your initializing code to the  
>> instance side of Behavior, into an #initialize method (following  
>> the general pattern of how #new is implemented)? I ask because I  
>> do not want to break the implementation of traits (which I assume  
>> was the reason for introducing the above beginning with 3.8).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Klaus D. Witzel
>> [hidden email]
>>
>
>
>

> You would like to have
>
> Behavior>>new
>
>   ^ self basicNew initialize.
>
> Behavior>>initialize
>
> self methodDictionary: self emptyMethodDictionary.
> self superclass: Object.
> self setFormat: Object format.
> ^ self

>> You would like to have
>>
>> Behavior>>new
>>
>>   ^ self basicNew initialize.
>>
>> Behavior>>initialize
>>
>> self methodDictionary: self emptyMethodDictionary.
>> self superclass: Object.
>> self setFormat: Object format.
>> ^ self
>
> I just tried and it works. I also tried to break it when creating  
> subclasses, but I was not successful.
> Let's assume a class A, for which:
> A class>>initialize
> " do nothing"
>
> I was wondering why I can still create a subclass of A.