On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Frank Shearar wrote:

> Well, if we moved #rename: up to ClassDescription, the Traits package
> would simply depend on Kernel, as it already does.
>
> Otherwise, I fully approve of keeping Traits unloadable. (But really,
> they're a very neat idea with interesting possibilities. If only
> Someone would make the tools work properly with them.)

I consider Traits to be dead end. They don't fit well into the system. 
With less effort a more powerful solution could have been implemented 
without introducing a new kind of Behavior.


Levente

>
> frank
>
> On 2 November 2013 11:56, Nicolas Cellier
> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hehe, once upon a time, that was a reason for implementing Traits with
>> Traits, but we reverted because it did prevent Trait removal. Also, the
>> implementation was considered heavy, and Andreas opted for a much lighter
>> one.
>> Right now we still live with some duplications though...
>>
>>
>> 2013/11/2 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On 1 November 2013 23:10,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
>>>> Nicolas Cellier uploaded a new version of Kernel to project The Trunk:
>>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Kernel-nice.818.mcz
>>>>
>>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>>>
>>>> Name: Kernel-nice.818
>>>> Author: nice
>>>> Time: 2 November 2013, 12:05:29.34 am
>>>> UUID: 3dae8edc-b873-491e-8b54-596cae38eb5f
>>>> Ancestors: Kernel-cmm.817
>>>>
>>>> Avoid spurious warnings in Class>>rename: when an Undeclared isn't
>>>> really referenced.
>>>>
>>>> This may help some SUnit tests to pass.
>>>>
>>>> =============== Diff against Kernel-cmm.817 ===============
>>>
>>> This is exactly the same as Trait >> #rename:. Is there a way to
>>> remove the duplication? What would be a good reason not to push this
>>> up to ClassDescription? (Maybe that this would imply that you can
>>> #rename: a Metaclass?)
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>