[Moose-dev] Re: About instance variable metaclass
girba at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Nov 8 00:32:19 MET 2008
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason
is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX,
because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone
else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be
just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent
point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will
certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them
merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
> I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in
> favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty"
> metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any
> methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual
> inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass
> does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods
> would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still
> be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be
> trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's
> design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I
> think is a bit overengineered..
> On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>>>> As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge
>>>> classes and metaclasses.
>>>> It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on
>>>> there is such a merging.
>>> you mean independent?
>>> If we have the same data represented the same way independently of
>>> we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases
>>> on merging
>>> or not?
>> Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and
>> metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent
>> both the class and its metaclass I guess.
>> This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system
>> complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application
>> will be different than the one with no merging.
>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
"Value is always contextual."
More information about the Moose-dev