Meeting with Edgar notes

Germán Arduino garduino at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 13:09:00 UTC 2008


Full Agree.


2008/2/2, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> 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