Am Montag, 15. Dezember 2003 18:29 schrieb Hannes Hirzel:
Hello Lothar
Hello Hannes
Question:
Why is it 'unarguably' good style to fill abstract methods with the line "self subclassResponsibility"?
Answer: Because this is an idiomatic convention in the Smalltaker subculture to define a method as abstract; see Kent Becks book about Smalltalk idioms.
I know that. But, "because that's the way we do it (always did it)" or "because Kent Beck says so" is not an argument.
The point ot Nathanael is that he likes the system to have a way of distinguishing between abstract and non-abstract methods.
Is there an intrinsic property of a method which can be used to distinguish between an abstract and a non-abstract method?
In general OO software engineering circle the distinction between abstract and non-abstract methods is considered to be a valuable distinction.
I'm not arguing against the usefulness of this distinction. I am, however, arguing that abstract methods and their nonabstract counterparts should express the same basic semantic content.
So, is "self subclassResponsibility" a formulation of the abstract semantics of a given method, e.g. the closing of a stream?
Lothar, I really do not see your point.
I see. :)
Lothar
"Walk this world with me"