For the empty class, for example, the class MAAccessorMock is completely blank and without
comment. I’m wondering if this is intentional.
I have another question related to the design patterns. Is this true that the packages in
Magritted are named based on the design patterns based on which they are developed? Like
–Visitor, -Memento. And there are many design patterns lying in the code of Magritte.
From: smallwiki-bounces(a)iam.unibe.ch [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: 17 November 2013 16:03
To: Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
Subject: Re: [Magritte] Empty classes
I don't remember the details about the classes you mention, but empty classes make
perfectly sense. For example, most exception classes in Smalltalk are completely empty.
Have a look at the references of the respective classes to see how they are used and why
they don't need any extra behavior.
On 14 November 2013 16:49, Tuan Anh Bui <tuan.bui(a)student.uclouvain.be
<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote:
I'm analysing the Magritte system and I can see that there are many classes that
haven't been declared. Some, I believe, are those are there only to be abstracted like
MABasicObject. Some others, like MAAccessorMock, are there only for testing purpose? And
some other ones, like MAPropertyError, have blank code but still have some references to
So are all they code left blank intentionally for future work or for just testing, or just
an incomplete work. Should they be considered bad smells code as I am analysing those.
Thank you very much!
Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...