first class method categories (was Re: WTF is a trait?)
Daniel Vainsencher
daniel.vainsencher at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 05:10:15 UTC 2005
How about information such as excludes and aliases? We could display
these in the method pane when the trait is selected in the category
list, as you proposed when we talked.
This would also allow the editing. I think displaying this as virtual
methods might be more natural, but I don't know how the editing would
work then.
How about the fact that Traits at the moment have method categories? do
we get rid of those? this would probably be ok for fine grained traits,
might be a mess for large traits such as Andreas and Jecel were considering.
How about Traits that are composed of Traits? I think that information
should be at least indicated, and probably also navigable.
Anyway, anyone feel like prototyping this based on the demo image? As
long as you're working on that and modifying/extending the
TraitsOmniBrowser package, the integration should be easy, and we might
have both browsers in parallel for a trial period.
The code already in TraitsOmniBrowser should give some help implementing
this - it implements a virtual category for the requires stuff, which
might be a reasonable starting point for adding categories for Traits.
Daniel
PS - anyone working in that image, I do not at the moment advise
upgrading the Traits packages on your own. We are still making
occasional changes to the model that would break an image if you just
load them. Just code your stuff so that it load into a new demo image,
and we'll post new images from time to time until 3.9 merge time.
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.
>
> But yes, it would at least allow for some categories to have real
> semantic value.
>
> Avi
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|