On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:

> They are defined only implicitly when you place a class in a package.

Are they available via

MooseModel meta elementNamed: ....

?

> I would also prefer to have them explicitly defined, like we had in VW.

Doru did you the end of the mail about the pragma named for annotation and definition?

>
> Doru
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@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@iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
>
> --
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

--
--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"