Hi!

"J J" <azreal1977 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Who denies it?  I think the disconnect here is simply:  you see this as 
> >a
> > > huge, almost show-stopper level problem.  I personally see it as a minor
> > > annoyance that actually gets amazingly close while still looking nice 
> >and
> > > being explicit/obvious (i.e. less burden for the reader, and we all know
> > > code is read much more then written).  I personally don't want the look 
> >of
> > > (to me) a beautiful language to change for pain I just don't feel.
> >
> >It sounds like the "look" will be changed dramatically. We are only
> >stuffing in '::' between the prefix and the rest. It is not a HUGE
> >difference you know. :)
> 
> Well, I would just find seeing that everywhere in my smalltalk code very 
> ugly.  And looks of code do matter.  We are trained from a young age not to 
> look at ugly things more then we must.

Ehm, everywhere? I am not sure you have understood this proposal - the
likely effect is that you will almost NEVER see any of those :: in
actual code. You will see them in class definitions though.

Recall that they are only showed when there is a *conflict*.

> >Really? A huge pain? I agree that Traits are great etc, but I would not
> >say that we had "huge pain" before we got them.
> 
> Yes, the inheritance model without them has some real problems.  And finding 
> a solution is tough.  C++'s multiple inheritance?  Too complicated.  Java's 
> interfaces?  Too much work and code duplication.  So now smalltalk has a 
> solution, and IMO the best one.

As Avi posted - are you basing this on experience? Because most
experienced Smalltalkers have almost never felt any pressing need for
them. Sure, they are nifty - and they can improve on design - but a
"huge pain"? Nah.

regards, Göran