On 13 juil. 2013, at 14:44, Camillo Bruni wrote: > If you put all methods from ClassDescriptions in traits and move them on > Class and Metaclass there is no need for ClassDescription.
Except for "instanceVariables" and "organization" ivs of ClassDescription. Were you thinking about stateful traits? > If previously you want something that inherited from ClassDescription you > can simply include the traits now. > > In the case of a Behavior subclass nothing changes. > > On 2013-07-13, at 14:38, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why can't we keep ClassDescription. >> Then in addition Behavior is a nice class to have to build strange stuff. >> >> Stef >> >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Damien Cassou <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> 11151 More changes needed to trait/classes polymorphism >>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11151/ >>> >>> >>> That's huge. Soon, we will be able to remove thr ClassDescription and >>> Behavior classes. It makes sense because they are useless in the >>> presence of traits. But do people want it? >>> >>> -- >>> Damien Cassou >>> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >>> >>> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >>> losing enthusiasm." >>> Winston Churchill >>> >> >> > >
