Actually sorry Igor but you are wrong, you just defeated the purpose of Smalltalk. To expose you to the internals. Of course you can implement interfaces. You can even implement static types. You can do anything you want.
The compiler is written in Smalltalk after all. On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 at 23:02, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: If you want to ensure that your class(es) comply with certain protocol, just write a test that covers the protocol and checks that class instances will understand messages you want it to understand. But there's no way to restrict your class to comply to whole protocol once at a time, because tools made in a way, that you populating your class with methods, each method is add individually and compiled separately, and the only validation, the compiler is capable of is basically compliance with smalltalk syntax. And it doesn't cares about higher lever requirement, like whether your class turns to be 'valid' because of a method you just added, ready to be used and for what. Even more, there's no way to connect all those 'interface' formalisation garbage rules with send sites (the place where you actually invoking one or another method of one of potetial implementor of your interface), so it makes no sense to do any (pre)validation on whatever class/object in a system in order to check whether it conforms with it or not. That's " Why don't Smalltalk or Smalltalklike languages have checked interfaces?" -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
