On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:56:35 +0200, itsme213 <itsme213 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at cobss.com> wrote in message
>
>> It is perhaps possible to go one step further (or go back, for that
>> matter) and have no instance traits and no class traits, but just traits
>
> +1. This seems much cleaner (without knowing the intricacies of
> implementation).

:)

> But there is value to having an explicit "pair-of-traits" construct,  
> since a
> trait on normal instances often naturally pairs with (and needs) a
> corresponding trait on the class, and vice-versa.

Yes, if there really is some class traits that the instance traits depends  
on, it would have value. But I doubt that the class traits can then be  
re-used (for instance creation and/or class initialization), see my  
response to Andreas.

> Sophie
>
>
>
>
>