=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nathanael_Sch=E4rli?= <n.schaerli at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Daniel, hi all
> 
> I have been aware of this solution, and it actually works pretty nicely.
> Therefore, if I really had to release a traits changeset right now I
> would probably do it this way.
> 
> However, this is not the only problem I was running into when I did the
> traits work. In fact, there are several things in the kernel that are
> not very clean and make modifications/extensions really hard and messy,
> no matter how I tried.
> 
> That's why I finally decided not to rush in and spend a lot of time
> creating a changeset that is kind of messy anyway. Instead, I plan to
> clean up the kernel first and then implement traits in a clean way that
> has a well-defined interface to the traditional ST kernel.
It's wonderful when you can do things the right way. Have fun!

> An other advantage of this plan is the fact that it gives me the
> opportunity to implement an extension of traits (let's call it traits
> v2), which has significant advantages over the current version and is
> way more useful. And since v2 is completely downwards-compatible to v1,
> this clean implementation will also serve as the reference
> implementation of traits as they are now.
Can you say something about what is added in v2 compared to v1? I'm
curious.

Daniel