On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:19:29 -0700, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>  
wrote:

> Blake wrote:
>
> Do you have an actual example of how the code is cleaner or are you  
> simply repeating what other people tell you? I've been looking for good  
> examples for traits for a couple of years now but it seems that when  
> things go beyond the toy examples presented in the papers traits create  
> more complexity than they help to address.

I know you feel that way and I'm not in a position to make a complete  
argument one way or the other yet. But I =would= maintain that the removal  
of duplicate code and the segregation of responsibilities into meaningful  
compartments results in a set of collection classes that is cleaner and  
actually easier to apprehend.

Maybe I'll come out of my current experiments with the same opinion you  
have, I don't know. But the competing ideas I've tried have not done  
anything for me. And I'll share my results but of course I can't guarantee  
you won't think they're toy.

>> It's reasonable to ask for some evidence.
>
> Indeed. Correcting mistakes is reasonable too, but both usually don't  
> happen.

I'm not sure if this is a cryptic reference to believing that traits is a  
mistake and should be removed but if so, it would seem to be easy to undo  
relative to the scope of the issues being tackled.