19 Apr
2010
19 Apr
'10
8:04 p.m.
Hi
I notice that the following classes are not described in Fame. Now they are Group classes,
so it's not so important as instances are dynamically created. However, MooseGroup and
similar are described. So should we be consistent with the rule?
DudeDuplicationGroup
DudeMultiplicationGroup
FAMIXFileGroup
FAMIXFolderGroup
FAMIXGlobalVariableGroup
FAMIXNamespaceGroup
--
Simon
19 Apr
19 Apr
9:17 p.m.
Hi,
We should.
However, for the next version, I would propose to change Fame to not
depend on this annotation but create one by default. The idea is that
in 99% of the cases we just want the information we have already in
the Smalltalk hierarchy.
Cheers,
Doru
On 19 Apr 2010, at 20:04, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I notice that the following classes are not described in Fame. Now
they are Group classes, so it's not so important as instances are
dynamically created. However, MooseGroup and similar are described.
So should we be consistent with the rule?
DudeDuplicationGroup
DudeMultiplicationGroup
FAMIXFileGroup
FAMIXFolderGroup
FAMIXGlobalVariableGroup
FAMIXNamespaceGroup
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Don't give to get. Just give."
5363
days inactive
5363
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Simon Denier -
Tudor Girba