[Help-smalltalk] [GNU Smalltalk feature] Subclassing with new syntax

[Paolo Bonzini]

Issue status update for 
http://smalltalk.gnu.org/project/issue/76
Post a follow up: 
http://smalltalk.gnu.org/project/comments/add/76

Project:      GNU Smalltalk
Version:      <none>
Component:    Base classes
Category:     feature requests
Priority:     normal
-Assigned to:  
+Assigned to:  bonzinip
Reported by:  elmex
Updated by:   bonzinip
-Status:       active
+Status:       fixed

> I think elmex's issue is really about the inability to specify
variable subclasses 
> of any shape; for example

st> MyString withAll: #($a $b)
Object: MyString error: should not be implemented in this class, use
#new instead

> Will the aforementioned pragma have a way to make classes traditional
ST-80 
> variable classes as well?

That's already supported with for example <shape: #pointer>.  Shapes
were introduced in gst 2.2 and the converter automatically converts
variableSubclass: and friends to the appropriate shape pragma.  See
also the tutorial.



bonzinip



Previous comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:45:17 +0000 : elmex

Hi!

I've been wondering how to subclass classes
like String and Dictionary. How do I do it with
the new syntax? Using:

String subclass: MyString []

didn't seem to work.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:57:35 +0000 : bonzinip

It works:

st> String subclass: MyString []
st> MyString
MyString

but you have to set the shape:

st> MyString shape
nil

I might add a <shape: #inherit> pragma.  It's good that the default is
nil, because each class should set its shape manually (or tell that
it's fine to use the superclass shape).