Meeting with Edgar notes

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sat Feb 2 20:39:19 UTC 2008


Keith Hodges wrote:
> 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.

You are correct. My issue is not as much with traits (outside of my 
general prejudices about multiple inheritance ;-) but rather with the 
choices that have been made with their application in the class kernel. 
I've actually spent a significant amount of time trying to understand 
the design and implementation decisions and my main objection is 
basically the use of MI in such a mission-critical piece of the system. 
 From an engineering point of view one could *easily* make a traits 
implementation that is a simple extension of the 3.8 kernel by 
subclassing for example ClassDescription. The result would be a small, 
loadable(!) traits module that does not change the fundamentals around 
which that kernel was built.

Cheers,
   - Andreas



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list