Ok, so what would superclassDefinitions mean? Would it mean the inheritance definitions that point to the classes that I inherit from, or the inheritance definitions that have me as superclass? :)
I think that no matter what point of view is, we will be able to find another one that can induce confusion. For me incoming and outgoing works, but that is just because I remember with the convention.
That is why when we discussed about this (quite a long time ago) we said that if for invocations and accesses it is quite clear what incoming and outgoing means, then we can use the same for inheritance, just so that when people do not know they can always think that it is like in this other cases in which we have arrows.
Maybe we could name them inheritancesFromMySubclasses and inheritancesToMySuperclasses.
Doru
On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Stef, it is exactly because of getting people confused that we said that in case of confusion draw the UML diagram and then you know what goes in and what gets out.
I know still superclassDefinitions and subclassDefinitions are easier for me to understand _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"The coherence of a trip is given by the clearness of the goal."