Hi, Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2008, 16:37 -0800 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev: [...] > replace() does the right thing - it uses add() and delete(). The problem > here is that current proposal allows any user to yank the ground from > under the feet of the trait API creator and replace various bits of the > class with any other functionality without any regard for the > interdependency between them, so either each function in the traits > should be completely self-reliant and never use other functions - which > prevents one from create complete non-trivial APIs - or every rename > should be painfully verified with original trait developer or against > the actual source code, breaking the abstraction. Both don't seem too > practical to me.
To allow myself a final judgement, I must play around with it of course but I have the feeling, that managing interdependency wouldn't be that hard. Normally you would just use the trait. If you are brave and really know what you are doing, you can rename and excludes symbols. cu, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
