Hi Stef!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
[SNIP of good sounding status]
> > But this only works if Traits *can* be implemented as a package. I 
> > still
> > don't know that. Nathanael?
> 
> Why as a package? I do not understand why you are saying that?
> And tired toooo.

Sure, we are making you tired - but you will just have to hang in there.
:)

What I mean is that if Traits can not be packaged as a package (if for
example it is simply too hard to do) - then our choices are much more
black and white.

If it *can* be made a package then people that are die-hard negative
about Traits can still elect not to use it. They can then use Minimal
(you know - the image smaller than Basic) and simply not install Traits
into it.

Now, I understand that maintaining Traits as a package is a hard thing
to do. It is typically a quite advanced "patch" to the kernel stuff in
Squeak. This all depends on how you guys have built it - through various
refactorings or through simply modifications.

So the question remains - is Traits plausible to maintain as a package -
or is it not? And also of course, if it is - would you be willing?
Unless this is so - then this turns into a black and white choice.

> Bootstrapping the kernel is not something that you can do in a package.
> Or you will complain that traits are not integrated you cannot have the
> butter and the money for the butter.

Well, I want to be absolutely clear on our options here.

regards, Göran