On 2009-12-30 14:35, Andreas Raab wrote:
> David T. Lewis wrote:
>> The only thing that I would want to check - and apologies for my 
>> ignorance
>> here - is backward compatibility with regards to image segments. My
>> recollection is that Squeak 3.9 broke all kinds of things, including
>> SqueakMap and EToys projects, as a result of incompatibilities 
>> associated
>> with the introduction of traits into the image. So I would just want to
>> make sure that NanoTraits does not introduce further incompatibilities
>> that might make it more difficult to support EToys projects in the 
>> future.
>
> Yes, a very good point. The changes that I'm making make Etoys and 
> Squeak *more* compatible, not less. As Igor was pointing out I have 
> been pushing various bits of state that were scattered around all over 
> the places (in some cases duplicated in *three* places) into separate 
> entities: TraitOrganizer and TraitMethodState. Those are only used 
> when you actually use traits, and as a consequence, when you don't use 
> traits the structure is identical to Etoys and consequently image 
> segments will work fine.
>
> So at least this level of incompatibility will cease to exists. Oh, 
> and score one more point for delegation over inheritance.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
How about Tweak and NanoTraits ?

Karl