2010/5/6 Stefan Marr <p...@stefan-marr.de> > Hi Felipe: > > Hope you don't mind that I post it on the list, think the discussion should > be properly archived. > > No problem..., open source, open discussion. :-)
> On 06 May 2010, at 18:30, Felipe Pena wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > 2010/5/6 Stefan Marr <p...@stefan-marr.de> > > Hi Felipe: > > > > On 05 May 2010, at 22:00, Felipe Pena wrote: > > > One question... Looking at the grammar, I got a doubt... Is actually > intended to allow constructions like 'trait foo extends ...' and 'trait foo > implements ...' ? (I can't see an example like that on the RFC) > > > > The idea is that traits form its own hierarchy of composition, and since > they can be composed from traits itself, it should not be necessary, to > allow inheritance. > > > > So, no, extends and implements should not be allowed. > > The idea of allowing interfaces was rejected in the first big discussion. > > Interfaces belong to classes, and traits are solely meant to provide > implementation. > > Since you can exclude methods, it does not fit well with the notion of > interfaces. > > > > There are a number of things which are not quite clear in the grammar at > the moment. > > My idea was that I just reuse the class grammar, and add exceptions for > the situations which are not allowed. > > Mostly to avoid duplicating the relevant grammar parts. > > > > Do you think it would be better to do it the other way around, and use a > dedicated grammar for traits? > > > > We could use a dedicated grammar or make the properly checks in the > compiler. Both solutions looks good for me. > > > > I got a new question for you... Shouldn't we don't allow the > implementation of magic methods and constructors in Traits? > > Hm, well, don't know, but I do not really see a reason to disallow magic > methods. > > There are definitely use-case for something like __toString. > Constructors are a complicated topic on its own. But in general, the > initialization part might also be reusable. > > So, what would be your argument why they might be 'harmful'? > > I am not against it, I was just asking because both topics (magic methods & constructors) aren't currently working on my tests. -- Regards, Felipe Pena
