16 Dec
2008
16 Dec
'08
2:59 p.m.
Hi Simon,
Makes sense.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of
problem understanding."
Yes, it is
used just to specify the sequence of Associations as
they appear in the code.
Not sure I get it (currently, we do nothing about it in the
importer). Do you mean we can have for example: an Invocation after
an Access after a Reference? It's ok then although it does not make
sense for inheritance.
If it's about sequence, I prefer previous/next terms. As for above/below, we thought that a polymorphic
message for source/
target access at the Association level would help: from/to sounds
good (overridden in subclasses to call accessor/variable, subclass/
superclass, sender/receiver)
I suggest to do like we did for belongsTo. beglonsTo is now derived
from the actual values. So, the values will still be stored in
instance variables like accessor/variable, subclass/superclass, sender/
receiver, and then from/to will return the values stored in these
variables.
Cheers,
Doru
On Dec 16,
2008, at 11:16 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"When people care, great things can happen."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi Stef,
above/below refer to the order of relationships in code, not to
source/target :).
I do not understand what is the iv that you refer to in
Association. I guess it's above/below.
Yes and we do not understand its purpose?
You mean that this is used for sequencing when a have multiple
association?
If so, the real state of the relationships is
actually in the
subclass:
- Access: accessor -> variable
- Inheritance: subclass-> superclass
- Invocation: sender -> receiver
- Reference: from -> to
Cheers,
Doru
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi doru
>
> in association we (simon and me) have problems with above: and
> below: (which only works for inheritance)
> we suggest from: to: which would have the benefit that when we
> do not want to distinguish between access and
> reference give us the interface with want.
>
> Access from a method to a structure
> Access accessor a method to a structure
> Reference from a method to a structure
> Inheritance from a class to its superclass
>
> Then I do not understand why the instance variable is defined
> both in the class and its superclass
> either we have
> abstract methods in Association and no state in Association and
> attributes in subclasses.
>
> or we have
> state in Association and method in subclass reuse this state (=
> no definition of other iv in subclasses)
>
>
> To help debugging we prefer to have state in subclasses and
> abtsract superclass methods.
> Stef
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are
similar."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev