IMO, traits are fundamental and essential.

In the new BabyUML programming paradigm, a CLASS defines what an object 
IS as seen from its inside and a ROLE defines what an object DOES as 
seen from its outside.

It was a major breakthrough when I realized that a role should be coded 
as a trait, the trait defining what the object does in the context of a 
structure of collaborating, role playing objects.

A role is played by an object at run time. This object can be an 
instance of any class that implements its trait. So the trait is tied to 
a fundamental abstraction that is on the same level as the class.

I both look forward to and dread my publication of the first Baby IDE. 
Will it start a constructive discussion, will it be slaughtered, or will 
it be ignored?

With trepidation
--Trygve


On 13.05.2008 11:09, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> I don't cut any...yet.
> And I don't do if Board said this is a bad idea.
> And I don't cut if I see any reasonable thing (not a exercise) need Traits
> and could not be made without Traits.
> And I don't cut if see many people ask for keep Traits .
>
> ...



-- 

Trygve Reenskaug       mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no

Morgedalsvn. 5A         http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver

N-0378 Oslo               Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27

Norway

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080513/b79f853a/attachment.htm