2010/5/7 Felipe Pena <felipe...@gmail.com> > 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. >
JFYI: I've committed a fix and tests related to this issue. -- Regards, Felipe Pena
