>
> I didn't intend to imply anything like that.

I know but I just wanted to make that point clear. :)

> I was just curious about
> the fundamental difference.  The terminology is obviously different,
> but for me data+methods is an object what ever it's called.  In that
> context stateful traits seemed like MI with everything outside the
> main inheritance line named differently.

The main difference is that traits give control to the composer.

> Of course you probably deal with conflicts differently then existing
> MI systems, and there should probably be more research done on MI.

Exact. The problem is that the more I think about it the more I thikn  
MI is difficult :)

> C++ did an awful job of it, but I've heard good things about Lisp
> CLOS.

In my previous live I was a Closer and Moper there. You get problem  
with linearisation
even if C3 as in dylan is better than the default CLOS one.

>  In C++ one can potentially have very deep (unnaturally so)
> class hierarchies due to pressure from the type system but neither
> Smalltalk nor Lisp have that problem.

In Clos you could have really strange unexpected beahvior where a  
change in one class
shows up in anoter place because of the linearisation. At least the  
people of nichimen (guys behind
Lord of the ring 3d engine) told me that problem when they wanted to  
hire me back in 1995.

Stef