+1 for keeping them (let's be a bit conservative).

What I call does not work is:
- if you have a Trait instance, say MyTrait, then (MyTrait browse) will
open on Trait rather than MyTrait
- a side effect, browsing implementors of a method #traitMethod implemented
by Trait will answer exactly one Trait>>traitMethod per Trait instance



2013/7/22 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>

> By "browse" do you mean something other than using Browser? Because I
> unaware of any _serious_ Trait issues until now, other than #- not
> doing the right thing in complicated compositions.
>
> frank
>
> On 21 July 2013 23:12, Nicolas Cellier
> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, it appears that all these are Traits, and that we currently can't
> browse
> > Traits.
> > See Trait someInstance browse...
> > (In my image I have a few obsolete Traits by the way)
> >
> > 2013/7/21 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Note that bindingOf: contents moved to bindingOf:environment: since
> >> Environment, so the fix might have to be updated.
> >> BTW when I browse implementors of bindingOf: I see many
> Trait>>bindingOf:
> >> Is it just me?
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/7/21 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> On 21 July 2013 00:41, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> >>> > Whilst trawling through ancient dusty mantis reports I found this
> >>> > little fella' - http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=1554 and thought
> to
> >>> > myself, "well now, this one will be closable because someone will
> surely
> >>> > have modified the compiler a fair bit by now and solved this". Wrong.
> >>> > Despite the fairly amazing amount of heat that the discussion
> released back
> >>> > in 2003 (ten years ago! eeek!) it appears nothing was done at the
> time
> >>> > beyond a proposed fix that only got into Mantis-land two years late
> through
> >>> > Ken Causey's good offices.
> >>> >
> >>> > I tried out the suggested test code in a very recent (#12641) image
> and
> >>> > 8 out of 10 test passed. Now I'm no compiler guru and don't claim to
> have
> >>> > any special opinion on this except that it looked pretty serious
> back then
> >>> > and probably ought to be fixed if at all possible. Unless someone
> has good
> >>> > reasons for those two 'failing' tests to be considered unimportant,
> of
> >>> > course.
> >>>
> >>> Those two tests - are they the tests that Ken says failed before
> >>> loading the changeset, and work afterwards?
> >>>
> >>> frank
> >>>
> >>> > tim
> >>> > --
> >>> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> >>> > There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one
> >>> > works.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130722/c03a76b3/attachment.htm