On 6 mars 07, at 07:07, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Besides, there are a few changes to the language that might  
> dramatically help with solving these issues - I have recently  
> started to think about traits in that way, e.g., to be able to  
> "import" an API that immediately delegates to some other  
> implementor (this particular thought was triggered by the  
> realization of traits being the equivalent of an #include<>  
> statement and one of useful the things that does is giving you  
> access to a name space - in which case you can say "self do: arg"  
> and the trait might map that automatically into "FooImpl for: rcvr:  
> do: arg" or

I would like to understand what you would like to have here but I  
could not get it.
Can you explain it a bit?


> so - I'm not sure where this would lead to but the current uses of  
> traits really resonate with me as solving the wrong problem at the  
> wrong time in the wrong context ... and yet, I do think that there  
> may be a pony somewhere) Unfortunately, you'd still need that very  
> fast type test and possibly also the need to query for a default  
> implementation.
>
> In any case, I think that the "love to adding methods" is pretty  
> much a red herring in this discussion. It is one of the possible  
> tradeoffs you can make but it is certainly not the only one. And  
> I'm sure we can find solutions for it if we put our mind to the  
> problem (as a matter of fact, Dan made at least one concrete  
> proposal towards that exact problem which wasn't exactly utopian  
> either).

Can you tell us more?