On Sep 3, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Blake wrote:
>
>
> Ooh. That's a damn cool idea.
>
> Would that mean that Smalltalk categories would have (or reflect,  
> rather) semantic value?

We'd have to decide whether we wanted to just have traits (and so  
every method category would become a trait), or whether we wanted to,  
at least at first, have distinct concepts of first-class traits and  
second-class categories.  I'd personally lean towards starting with  
the latter, slowly promoting individual categories into traits by  
hand over time, rather than a big-bang conversion of every method  
category in the image to a trait.

But yes, it would at least allow for some categories to have real  
semantic value.

Avi