19 May
2009
19 May
'09
11:25 a.m.
Ok, it makes sense. I just loaded the last version of ConAn, but some
error popped up. What is the status ? Where you happy about the
implementation?
I can port SCG-Algorithm to Pharo, this shouldn't be a problem since I
am experienced in this kind of porting.
I suggest to use the Moose mailing list for FCA related discussion.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 19 May 2009, at 05:13, Gabriela Arevalo wrote:
Hi Alex,
In fact, this is because when I finished my phd, my prototype was
almost broken due to the continuous changes in moose.
So I decided that the next version of ConAn would be Moose
independent to avoid to suffer with Moose evolution and also to be
able to work with any domain (not necessary related to Moose). The
implementation you have seen is something I started last year
recovering my code from my prototype in Store in Bern.
I know the advantages of FAMIXEntity, but it was a nightmare to
repair ConAn in the times that Moose changes a lot.
Anyway, and considering that moose seems to be stable, I think that
we can make it a subclass of that class. I should think about it.
cheers,
gabi
PS: When are you moving to Chile?
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi Gabriela,
I was wondering why your implementation of FCA isn't implemented as
an extension of FAMIX. Even if FCA has little to do with Structural
entities in OO languages, FAMIXEntity could be inherited. For
example, why FormalConcept is not a subclass of it?
Cheers,
Alexandre