why interface implementors are called subclassHierarchyGroup?

> Hi guys
>
> I was watching the videos of doru and I was wondering why we cannot
> just get
>
> each isInterface
> => interface
> -> implementors
>
> Stef
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> This is because we used to have only FAMIXClass and then it was natural to have classHierarchy in the method name. Now, this method is in type, so we should migrate it to be subTypesHierarchy, and superTypesHierarchy.
>
> We had the idea to create FAMIXInterface explicitly, but the problem is that it creates duplication with ParameterizableClass. I am not sure what the best solution is, so I reopened the issue:
> http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=526
>
> If we would have a FAMIXInterface, then we could have an implementors method there. But, as it is now, I think having it in FAMIXType (FAMIXClass) does not work out well.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On 21 Sep 2011, at 22:21, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> I was watching the videos of doru and I was wondering why we cannot
>> just get
>>
>> each isInterface
>> => interface
>> -> implementors
>>
>> Stef
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev