>> Yes please do it, but read the %$%$#$%#X papers and try.
>> We even did an example with complex number to show how we can reuse 
>> code
>
> Calm down Stephane - not all Squeakers have the time to read your
> papers. I will read them - at least some of them - but don't expect all
> of us to have the time to do that. So some simple questions, no matter
> how stupid, you will just have to be able to answer here on squeak-dev.


But the model fits in half of a page in the ecoop paper. We spent 
months on this
paper so you should get much more out of reading them that reading my 
emails.
You know we are professional writers and this is not full of greek 
letters.

So read the ECOOP paper and if you want the OOPSLA one in diagonal
It will take you 15 min for the ecoop one and you will know everything 
you want
to know about traits.

http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Scha03aTraits.pdf

> These questions were tailored in order to try to see a little bit, what
> the effects Traits would have on Traits-haters. I do plan to read the
> papers - but I also expect to be able to ask a few questions to you
> guys. Ok?

Sure

> Anyway, the answers so far look good. Still, given the massive changes
> here (otherwise you wouldn't argue it being hard to maintain as a
> package),

There are not massive but chirurgical and with precision. So you see
this is different.

> there is logically a good chance that this will "shine
> through" even to the Traits haters. I just want you to think hard about
> that issue.

Think think. But you know there is a tool delivering package Squat Mack,
SqueakMap and if you click on it you can even load traits and open a 
changesorter ;)
I can do that on emails.


Stef