Dale
I missed your remark about traits.I think that traits are nice because
they act as a kind of static macro expansion and really help to get
multiple inheritance into single one.
Now ideally I would like to have
(I hate so much this google nonUI)
- state with traits with a nice initialization process.
- Now Pablo did a nice and simple implementation of Talents (dynamic
traits). I should have a look because if we could unify it and have
either a trait statically applied to a class (what we have now) and a
trait being applicable to an instance then it would be really good.
Where is this Talents implementation?
I should ask pablo.
It is better than the one of jorge because it is not based on reflectivity
but anonymous class.
We will document it.
Stef
thanks,
Norbert
Now making the tools traits-aware is much more than just having traits
in the language. - change
- loading
- editing
- overloading when we compile a method that comes from a trait we
should be able to say that it overrides.....
What we did with the "unification" of traits and classes and the use of
traits inside the kernel is a mistake (in Squeak andreas if I recall
made Trait a subclass of classDescriptionand this is not good either -
even if he marketed it as a good idea) and we will iterated to remove
the use of traits from Class and friends.Then ideally I would like to
iterate over the - reflective API (because we should be able to
simply access the "class" of a compiledMethod from where the traits is
coming from or where it is installed - revisite the implementation
because the clause composition.
I think that the tools should not manipulate traits as classes because
traits are not classes.Then doing this we will clarify that the traits
and classes must not be polymorphic because they are not.
Stef
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
