Though, Dictionary was technically a Set of Associations, until someone changed Association>>= to also compare values.
2013/7/21 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> > > 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. > > >
