After fighting with the system I put the paper available for everybody:
	http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/ 
Duca04wtoplastraitnotfinal.pdf

stef


On 28 sept. 04, at 17:26, Diego Gomez Deck wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
>> By the way
>> 	
>> 	Traits are ready to get in but I forgot to mention them, strange.
>> 	Alan always said to nathanael that he would like to have a smalltalk
>> with traits, so we have a good opportunity.
>> 	Now this would be important to know if someone is against.
>>
>> Stef
>
> I'm not against traits at all but I have comments to do (note: I sent
> this comments to people behind traits months ago and I got no answer)
>
> What I don't like in traits is the procedure to resolve conflicts.  The
> politic to create a flat view of all the traits + super class produces
> some of the problems we find in multi-hierarchy inheritance.
>
> Concretely I would like to hear from you (the traits team) why a
> flat-everything model is better than (my favorite) the mixins in
> Strongtalk [1].  As long as I understand, this model shared the  
> benefits
> of traits avoiding the problems when conflicts occurs.
>
> BTW, What about a first version of traits/mixins/callAsYouWant where
> conflicts are not allowed?  In this case we can start to move from the
> single-hierarchy while we find a way to resolve the conflicts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Diego
>
> [1] http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/projects/strongtalk/big/mixins-paper.ps
>
>
>