Roger that. Thanks.
jrs
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:09 PM, P T Withington wrote:
I think you need something in there to say that all the chatter
about traits on the blogs and dev lists were informal uses of the
term, which we have been educated on and we promise not to use it
any more, otherwise people are likely to ask where traits are.
Please spiff this up to convey that.
On 2006-12-04, at 15:34 EST, JFX Sundman wrote:
The following paragraph appears in the draft release notes, after
the description of mixins:
"
Traits <http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Research/Traits/>, which is
the term we used informally when discussing our extension of the
language, has a formal definition in O-O theory that side-steps
the complexity of mixins and overriding by prohibiting state and
overriding in `trait`s. We do not enforce such restrictions,
although the designer can impose such a discipline on themselves.
"
I propose to delete it. We do NOT support traits and we do
support mixins. Therefore I think any mention of traits
unnecessarily complicates things.
Opinions?
jrs
