Roel Wuyts <Roel.Wuyts at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 06 Apr 2004, at 11:31, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> [cut stuff - see below]
> 
> > That is not what I mean, though I agree I haven't defined my meaning of
> > the word. :)
> >
> > The "idea" is to not be afraid of conflicts - but instead "embrace 
> > them"
> > and acknowledge them as a "good thing" because they prevent 
> > "reinventing
> > wheels" and pollution of the global namespace that we still have in our
> > heads (!). And then handle them as they appear. I think my next post
> > will make it clearer with actual scenarios etc what I mean.
> 
> Yes!!! Someone who got the common point of traits and classboxes :-) 
> "Conflicts" are good and interesting, and need to be tackled explicitly 
> by the developer with some composition mechanism. If you're thinking 
> along these lines then I am really looking forward to your proposal :-) 

Oops, now I feel the pressure. I am not sure my humble little proposal
will live up to these expectations. :)

> There is some tricky issues but I will comment on your proposal if I 
> find the time :-)

That would be nice. Note that I haven't read about Classboxes yet and my
little proposal is very much along the STTCPW.

regards, Göran