This may sound rediculous to you Stephane, but it is called Thought.
This is definately NOT an insult.
It is actually a subclass of Behavior. (minor design flaw).
It is not in Smalltalk because it was designed for very small children.
JW
---- "stéphane ducasse" <ducasse(a)iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> Difficult question...
>
> Behavior is a good name for classes and traits.
> Behavior as in Smalltalk is more ClassEssence or ClassCore but we
> cannot change that.
>
> Stef
>
>
> On 4 oct. 05, at 04:42, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > In many places in Squeak, we do things to classes. In many of
> > those, we actually want to be doing those things also to Traits, or
> > any other code-containing abstraction, probably. For example, we
> > want to to be able to browse it, file it in/out and such.
> >
> > So what do we call this concept?
> >
> > Just to make the discussion more concrete, I'll give some specific
> > cases:
> > -SysNav>>allClasses should probably only return real classes, but
> > it is used in various places in which all Traits should be returned
> > as well, for example Compiler recompileAll should recompile Traits,
> > since otherwise some obsoletely compiled methods would remain even
> > in classes : ones that are composed with Traits.
> > -In the tools, in many places we do something like
> > "self selectedClass ifNil:[^self]. <otherwise>"
> > In some of those places, we actually want to exclude Traits, and
> > there I've been using #isBehavior: instead of #ifNil:, however
> > Adrian and I are both somewhat inclined to think of Traits as being
> > Behaviors, sort of. But clearly, we want some name that includes
> > both, and some name that includes classes (and other Behavior
> > subclasses?) but that excludes traits.
> >
> > So I'm asking for more opinions.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
>
>