Hi Cyril,

Your problem is caused because abstract methods should be marked with
"subclassResponsibility" and not "shouldBeImplemented".

- shouldBeImplemented means "this is a method I did not implement yet, I
should replace *this* method with another implementation"
- subclassResponsibility means "my subclasses should implement a method
with this same selector"

The tools recognize the first as a normal "concrete" method and the second
as an abstract method.

El jue., 23 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 10:15 a. m., Norbert Hartl <
[email protected]> escribió:

> Stef,
>
> where is "the tool"?
>
> Norbert
>
> > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <[email protected]>:
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > One:
> > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The
> tool works well is fast.
> > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are
> bad dependencies in his
> > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code).
> > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this
> instead of making sure that
> > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package
> is bound with this one".
> > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I
> would say) maintain it.
> >
> > Two:
> > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add
> more.
> > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now.
> >
> > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about
> modularity.
> >
> > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give
> me good indication
> > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think
> that I'm emotional
> > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this.
> >
> > Stef
> >
> > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a écrit :
> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
> >>>> this is so good.
> >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo?
> >>> No. People should start to think modular.
> >>> No more external tools loaded by default.
> >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the
> configurationBrowser.
> >>>
> >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show
> to people
> >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason.
> >>>
> >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use.
> >>
> >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with
> lots
> >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and
> all the
> >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double?
> >>
> >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used,
> we will have
> >> that again.
> >>
> >> I don’t want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to
> be using should
> >> be there without needing an additional step.
> >>
> >>      Marcus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to