I tried TraitsOmniBrowser and as I recall I could not be productive with it.
However it was half-year ago  and  I will take a fresh look.
Adrian, sorry if my post sounded like a harsh complain (it was a complain
indeed), but my intent was not all that negative. I just wanted to bring up
this topic again (in a bit provocative way, I admit) and also to stress two
points:

1) There are people who care about traits and who appreciate any work in
this direction.
2) Discussions popup from time to time, in which traits benefits are
questioned basing on the fact that they are not used widely, although they
are in the image for a quite a lot of time. I would like to counter this
train of thought by telling that we can not say traits concept failed,
because nobody used them.

So, please see my post in this context. I personally believe that traits are
benefitial and I would like to apply them and to see if it is true.

Regarding the help, I would like to offer help in this case. In fact when I
miss something, I'm trying to do it silently myself. But in this case I'm
just not sure if I'm quilified - this is language infrastracture topic and
I'm more 'userland' kind of guy. But if you need help - could you please
describe what kind of help do you expect? If not me - probably other
interested could jump in.

Regards, 
  Danil




Adrian Lienhard wrote:
> 
> Have you tried TraitsOmniBrowser (http://www.squeaksource.com/ 
> TraitsOmniBrowser.html)? Also, the OmniBrowser in the image has basic  
> support for Traits.
> Of course the tools are not perfect. Instead of helping to improve  
> the situation people tend to complain. Unfortunately this will not  
> bring us forward. But hey, its not that important, is it?
> 
> Adrian
> 
> BTW, Monticello supports Traits too
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Squeak-Foundation-Board-2007-Candidates-tf3253392.html#a9079698
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.