On 17 February 2012 09:57, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
Smalltalk _uses_ classes, but there's no "class" in "everything's an object, and objects communicate by sending messages".
That aside, while Ruby _supports_ something like "object level trait" in the form of eigenclasses, mixins seem much more like how Gilad describes them, and "parameterised subclasses" - classes that take a superclass as parameter.
That means that Array withTrait: IdentityHashed. Object withTrait: IdentityHashed creates _classes_, something like this:
   Array         Object     ^           ^     |           |  (IdentityHashed)   (IdentityHashed)
Yes, i think this is right direction, by creating an anonymous subclasses, which holding additional state/methods added by trait. One of problems however is of course different object format(s): i.e. applying a stateful trait to ByteArray <- Trait is not the same as applying it to: Array <- Trait and simply impossible to SmallInteger <- Trait :)
frank
On 17 February 2012 05:18, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Hernan Wilkinson <hernan.wilkinson@10pines.com> wrote: oh, ok. Yeah, I like the idea, but I agree with stef that you need tool support... an environment like Self for example
I agree, it would need some tool support, I didn't have time to work on it yet.
Which kind of tool support do you think we would need? (I love many of the ideas in Self, but the environment is not one of them.)
One thing I would like to put some work on is refactorings for traits (including some not necessarily related with the previous idea).
Indeed.
I do not see why we would like to have object level trait. May be in ruby but not in class-based language or this is not a class based language anymore.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.