Yes, I'm using Moose to analyse the Magritte system. It's rather really complicated, just as what you say, solving problems at a high level and not easy to understand. One thing really weird is I can't view entire code of Magritte classes using Pharo browser, but using Moose instead. -----Original Message----- From: smallwiki-bounces(a)iam.unibe.ch [mailto:smallwiki-bounces@iam.unibe.ch] On Behalf Of Stephan Eggermont Sent: 20 November 2013 17:48 To: Pier and Related Tools ... Magritte Subject: Re: [Magritte] Empty classes Are you using Moose to analyse the Magritte system? Moose has its own mailing list. Magritte uses a lot of the patterns from the gang of four book, and names classes (and a few packages) after the patterns. Magritte is a good example of a framework with high essential complexity and low accidental complexity. It is difficult to understand because it solves (difficult) problems at a high abstraction level. The elimination of duplication has been done rather well. If you want to use Magritte for web development, you might want to take a look at the extensions in QCMagritte. MABasicObject overrides GRObject class side basicErrorClass method. Magritte has to work in multiple Smalltalk implementations. Grease helps with that. Having Magritte objects inherit from GRObject allows platform-specific overrides to be applied. The role of MAAccessorMock isn't clear to me either. It has no references and removing it doesn't make any test fail. It could of course be that references/subclasses are only defined in packages not loaded by default. More likely is perhaps that it was used in an earlier version of the framework or tried out at a certain point in time and not removed when no longer needed. You could find out by browsing earlier versions of the Magritte packages. Stephan _______________________________________________ Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ... https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki