13 Apr
2008
13 Apr
'08
7:50 p.m.
Yes, that is true.
Doru
On Apr 13, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
We have the following definition:
FAMIXClass>>superclass ^self anySuperclass
FAMIXClass>>anySuperclass
self superclassesDo: [ :each | ^each ]. ^nil
FAMIXClass>>superclassesDo: aBlock
outgoingInheritances do: [ :each | aBlock value: each superclass ].
outgoingInheritances do: [ :each | each superclass superclassesDo:
aBlock ].
It means that asking for the superclass of a class may return an
interface...
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Problem solving should be concentrated on describing
the problem in a way that is relevant for the solution."
But how do I set the link
"isImplementedBy:" from a class to an
interface? Is this
by declaring a superclass?
Yes. You will have an InheritanceDefinition between the two classes.
That would look odd..
It's not really that odd. Anyway, this will change in FAMIX 3.0.