On Feb 2, 2008, at 4:07 PM, Keith Hodges wrote:

>
>>    traits and the other without. This just didn't arise in the
>>    meeting
>>
>>
> I think that this is missing a point. I may be reading what Andreas  
> said
> wrongly, and I am sure he will be quick to correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I do not think that the issue is with the concept of traits or the  
> fact
> that traits work. It is the application of traits
> to the class/metaclass heirarchy which renders elements of it  
> difficult
> to understand.

sure the refactoring of classDescription is far from optimimal but  
because
classDescriptoin and other are a bit old now.
We could remove traits from them but we would duplicate bugs

> I would like to see the concept of traits retained, and if it  
> simplifies
> things, extended to include stateful traits.

I would like to find another stateful traits model before you do that :)
because I have serious concerns about them, even if some crazy PHP guys
want to push that in PHP I would really not push that in Smalltalk :)

> I would like for the concept of traits which enables the behaviour
> defined by a class
> to be an assembly of components to allow one of those components to  
> be a
> collection of Package extension-methods. So that extensions have a  
> true
> identity, as opposed to being one method with a '*' in its method  
> category.

Nice !

>
>
> best regards
>
> Keith
>
>