>>>
> Not trivial? Maybe not, but only a little bit harder than trivial.
We are open to suggestions believe me :)
>
>> 2) well, this is difficult to get the money for the butter and the butter -
>> we are trying.
>
> If you can compose classes the way you can add a trait to a class now with
> class and optional method level instance+class variable mapping, then you're
> done. It would be a lot simpler to use it _and_ it would also be a lot easier
> to implement it. Especially the tools part.
I'm interested to hear more about that.
Tell us more. The problem we faced was
- offset access = you cannot reuse bytecode of a trait because the
order of the offset can be different in each trait users
- initialization of instances variables at the trait level and the
composition at the class levele
>
>> 3) again if nobody does anything and we just all cry on ourselves then
>> nothing will happen.
>
> Tools are a must. No tools - no users.
Exact.
>> So for now identifying traits and learning is the way. Then we can refactor,
>> redesign
>
> Well, Traits are in Squeak since 2006, IIRC they were available a few years
> earlier. So in the last X (at least 4) years the only good candidate to
> become a Trait was Magnitude.
Come on.
I will not answer to such statement because I'm positive thinking.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
