On 1 July 2013 14:01, Camille Teruel wrote:
>
> On 1 juil. 2013, at 12:19, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 30 June 2013 15:48, Damien Cassou wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Camillo Bruni
>>> wrote:
But you know that you can do this right now?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think these examples onl
On 1 juil. 2013, at 12:19, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 15:48, Damien Cassou wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Camillo Bruni
>> wrote:
>>> But you know that you can do this right now?
>>
>>
>> I think these examples only show that some verifications are missing.
>> I don't
On 30 June 2013 15:48, Damien Cassou wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>> But you know that you can do this right now?
>
>
> I think these examples only show that some verifications are missing.
> I don't know any source code using that. To me it's more a bug than a
>
Hi,
Theoretically, I could do the same for inheritance as well. But, that would
be too complex for most cases, so it is the implicit behavior. To me, the
decision for trait handling is similar.
Cheers,
Doru
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
> On 2013-06-30, at 11:16, Sebas
On Jun 30, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>
> uses: TMyOtherTrait
>
>
> But you know that you can do this right now?
>
> Object subclass: #Foo
> uses: TMyTrait classTrait
>
> and the same on the class-side :/
>
> Foo class
> uses: TMyOtherTrait
> instanceVariableNames: 'a b c'
>
> so from that
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
> But you know that you can do this right now?
I think these examples only show that some verifications are missing.
I don't know any source code using that. To me it's more a bug than a
feature. I would keep things simple: applying a trait t
On 2013-06-30, at 11:16, Sebastian Tleye wrote:
> I also like this uniform because it's easier to program,
> Up to now i haven't had the need to separate them.
>
> 2013/6/30 Tudor Girba
>> +1
>>
>> Keeping things uniform is a plus in this case, even though we might lose
>> some flexibility.
>>
I also like this uniform because it's easier to program,
Up to now i haven't had the need to separate them.
2013/6/30 Tudor Girba
> +1
>
> Keeping things uniform is a plus in this case, even though we might lose
> some flexibility.
>
> Doru
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Stéphane Ducass
+1
Keeping things uniform is a plus in this case, even though we might lose
some flexibility.
Doru
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Ok I slept and now my brain is working.
> I think that having classTrait and trait together is important because
> else it would be th
Ok I slept and now my brain is working.
I think that having classTrait and trait together is important because else it
would be the mess when
you have a class method that uses an instance methods (both define in a trait).
So conceptually this is one trait like in smalltalk you have one class and
so let's discuss that on monday with the trait specialists Damien et Sebastian
:)
On 2013-06-29, at 23:34, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> yes, i don't know if it good or bad, but i'd rather prefer that traits
> applied to Behavior,
> but not to Class (which has two entangled behaviors). But maybe for
>
yes, i don't know if it good or bad, but i'd rather prefer that traits
applied to Behavior,
but not to Class (which has two entangled behaviors). But maybe for
human comprehension it is better..
but not for implementing, because it certainly makes model more complex.
On 29 June 2013 22:52, Camillo
On 2013-06-29, at 22:32, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 29 June 2013 21:21, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 June 2013 20:12, Camillo Bruni wrote:
Working on the new class builder I have a hard time figuring out the full
trai
On 29 June 2013 21:21, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 29 June 2013 20:12, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>>> Working on the new class builder I have a hard time figuring out the full
>>> trait
>>> semantics.
>>>
>>> If I use a trait on instance side,
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 29 June 2013 20:12, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>> Working on the new class builder I have a hard time figuring out the full
>> trait
>> semantics.
>>
>> If I use a trait on instance side, does that imply that its classTrait on the
>> metaclass?
On 29 June 2013 20:12, Camillo Bruni wrote:
> Working on the new class builder I have a hard time figuring out the full
> trait
> semantics.
>
> If I use a trait on instance side, does that imply that its classTrait on the
> metaclass?
yes. Trait resembles same dual property as class (it has ins
Working on the new class builder I have a hard time figuring out the full trait
semantics.
If I use a trait on instance side, does that imply that its classTrait on the
metaclass?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
18 matches
Mail list logo
