On 11 juil. 06, at 09:27, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Hi Stef -
>
> I'm actually way beyond where I want to discuss these issues. I've  
> been trying to leave that stuff behind but when a message like Lex'  
> comes in where it basically says that it's my fault that Tweak  
> doesn't work in 3.9 (as if it were by my choice) it just annoys me  
> to no end.

true I did not read that :)

> The question I was raising, however, was and is serious: What, if  
> any, is the plan for the metaclass kernel? Are there, for example,  
> any plans for major traits refactoring? If so, it'd be nice if a  
> little bit of a strategy could be layed out so that, for example, I  
> can plan accordingly.

Right now we do not have plans. But I would be really interested  
discussing one.
What adrian tried is to avoid duplication. I do not believe that this  
is the best design and
I would really favor a rewrite of the kernel from scratch but this is  
not high priority.  I think that the metaclass kernel
is stable and I would like to get back one of your test green.

Stef