On 4 sept. 05, at 00:43, Avi Bryant wrote:

> On Sep 3, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Blake wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ooh. That's a damn cool idea.
>>
>> Would that mean that Smalltalk categories would have (or reflect,  
>> rather) semantic value?
>>
>
> We'd have to decide whether we wanted to just have traits (and so  
> every method category would become a trait), or whether we wanted  
> to, at least at first, have distinct concepts of first-class traits  
> and second-class categories.  I'd personally lean towards starting  
> with the latter, slowly promoting individual categories into traits  
> by hand over time, rather than a big-bang conversion of every  
> method category in the image to a trait.

Me too. No big-bang please, no revolution....(even for a french).
Especially since traits are more than category: they should represent  
cohesive set of behavior not just simply grouped together
methods for navigation purpose.

Stef