then they should be removed and we will not have any problems.


On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> stephane ducasse wrote:
>> Andreas
>> You are probably right.
>> May be we went too down the road.
>> Now try to explain this guy that merging sophie, croquet, OLPC  
>> package problems is not due to traits.
>
> I'd say that THE major problem in trying to port Croquet to 3.9/3.10  
> (which I attempted multiple times) were the changes to the class  
> kernel - which are a direct result of applying traits. So I'm not  
> sure that saying "it is not due to traits" is the correct way to  
> phrase it.
>
> Similarly for OLPC/eToys - I think the fact that the changes in the  
> class kernel make projects from older versions unloadable (which  
> IIRC was a well-known problem by the time 3.9 was released) may have  
> something to do with it.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>> BTW I will do 3.9.1 and do something else for myself. Since  
>> yesterday I discovered that I can have fun without the noise around  
>> it.
>>>> You are correct. My issue is not as much with traits (outside of  
>>>> my general prejudices about multiple inheritance ;-) but rather  
>>>> with the choices that have been made with their application in  
>>>> the class kernel. I've actually spent a significant amount of  
>>>> time trying to understand the design and implementation decisions  
>>>> and my main objection is basically the use of MI in such a  
>>>> mission-critical piece of the system. From an engineering point  
>>>> of view one could *easily* make a traits implementation that is a  
>>>> simple extension of the 3.8 kernel by subclassing for example  
>>>> ClassDescription. The result would be a small, loadable(!) traits  
>>>> module that does not change the fundamentals around which that  
>>>> kernel was built.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> - Andreas
>>>
>>>
>
>
>