Traits approaching mainstream Squeak
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Aug 29 06:34:18 UTC 2005
>
>
>
>> Yes, at the moment, we're using Traits lazily to avoid
>> duplication and inappropriate inheritance. We are not actively
>> refactoring other parts of the system at the moment. Doing so
>> would probably make the merge into mainstream Squeak more difficult.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Glad this discussion came up.
> Just to be clear, I'm all for having the Traits kernel in 3.9!
>
> But, at first I would suggest, and I think you want to do this
> anyways, that traits are not actually used. Not because they don't
> work or anything, but because of design considerations. So my gut
> feeling is that we should not use it for major refactoring of the
> system core in the near future.
>
>
I understand your point.
> OOP has taken many years to come up with something like patterns
> and my guess is that, although not quite that long, it will take
> some time for best practices to emerge for traits.
>
>
Exact, so we will certainly have trial and errors and feedback.
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative here,
> just cautious and wouldn't mind if you prove me wrong ;-)
>
> Somewhat related:
> how do traits affect packages? Should/can they be in separate
> packages?
>
>
Normally you can package traits and they can be in separate package
and any class.
Now if we have a class in PA using a trait in PB then we should get
PA dependent on PB but besides that nothing special.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|