danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> Sounds wonderful.

I agree. If you'd get the Collection hierarchy reworked in a cleaner way,
this would be a very good prove of concept of your Traits system (don't have
taken a look yet), since you have taken a *difficult* part of the system.

Getting something better as MI would be great!

A key point for the usability of such a system seems to me to have a good
integration into the tools (to avoid the 'modules effect').


Greetings,

Stephan

> This could solve a lot of understandability and
> composition issues in the image.
> 
> I'm curious how much this could help the understandability of Morphic,
> even if only some of the basic classes were recomposed. Might be alot,
> because it is very rich, but it might not, because AFAICT, it doesn't
> have the same multi-dimensional complexity you describe in Collections.
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher
> 
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nathanael_Sch=E4rli?= <n.schaerli at gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>>>I have no doubt when the Trait designers said they were gonna 
>>>tackle the 
>>>Collection heirarchy with traits that they were doing it for 
>>>just this 
>>>very reason....
>>
<<...>>

-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3