27 Sep
2011
27 Sep
'11
12:44 p.m.
They are defined only implicitly when you place a class in a package.
I would also prefer to have them explicitly defined, like we had in VW.
Doru
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr
wrote:
Hi
I was looking for the package (FM3 one) for FAMIX or Core and Java and I
could not find them.
Do you know if they got created?
I have the impression that this is another sign that pharo need
manifestoClass per packages so that we
can annotate them and Moose would use them to declare them.
Now imagine that we get that (we can just start adding a FAMIXJavaManifest
class in the package FAMIX-Java)
how do we annotate that this is a FM3Package because
<package: > is used to annotate properties
And I have the impression that having the distinction between definition
and specialisation of annotation is better.
We have
FMPackage:
FMClass: superclass:
but we could have
FMClassDefinition: superclass
FMPackageDefinition:
FMPackaged:
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"