>
>
>
>> Yes, at the moment, we're using Traits lazily to avoid  
>> duplication  and inappropriate inheritance. We are not actively  
>> refactoring  other parts of the system at the moment. Doing so  
>> would probably  make the merge into mainstream Squeak more difficult.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Glad this discussion came up.
> Just to be clear, I'm all for having the Traits kernel in 3.9!
>
> But, at first I would suggest, and I think you want to do this   
> anyways, that traits are not actually used. Not because they don't   
> work or anything, but because of design considerations. So my gut   
> feeling is that we should not use it for major refactoring of the   
> system core in the near future.
>
>
I understand your point.

> OOP has taken many years to come up with something like patterns   
> and my guess is that, although not quite that long, it will take   
> some time for best practices to emerge for traits.
>
>
Exact, so we will certainly have trial and errors and feedback.

> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative here,  
> just  cautious and wouldn't mind if you prove me wrong ;-)
>
> Somewhat related:
> how do traits affect packages? Should/can they be in separate   
> packages?
>
>
Normally you can package traits and they can be in separate package   
and any class.
Now if we have a class in PA using a trait in PB then we should get   
PA dependent on PB but besides that nothing special.

>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>