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
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. 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@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."
On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
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@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@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi Stef,
Yes, it is used just to specify the sequence of Associations as they appear in the code.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
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@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@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 www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"When people care, great things can happen."
On 16 déc. 08, at 13:46, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Stef,
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)
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
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@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@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 www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"When people care, great things can happen."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon
Hi Simon,
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.
Makes sense.
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:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
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@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@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 www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"When people care, great things can happen."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon
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
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem understanding."
Ok I will reintroduce (above below as next previous)
On Dec 16, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Simon,
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.
Makes sense.
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.
yes I will do that
-
Simon Denier -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba