On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/7/21 Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com>
> Yes, but where are the guarantees that you don't?
> Just think from outsider's point of view: when he sees
>
> Announcer subclass: #Foo
>
> what he will think first:
> - aha, this guy implements own kind of announcer
> or
> - aha this guy reusing announcer
> or
> - aha, this guy doing both things at the same time (a worst possible
> alternative)
>
> and how many abuses like that, he should see before making a logical
> conclusion:
> - aha.. this is the way how i should do as well.
>
> Interesting how many people in this list think that "Announcer subclass:
> #TxEditor" provides special implementation of announcer named TxEditor?
Many
this is composition using inheritance and inheritance should not be used like
that.
Announcer subclass: #GreedyAnnouncer
Announcer subclass: #RemoteAnnouncer
Are quite different from
Announcer subclass: #Customer
This is not because subclassing can be used that we should do it.
We suffer during years from
Dictionary subclass: #Set
and other beauties.
> Because to me it is not practical design issues when we talk about
> subclassing Announcer.
>
