On Wed, 11 May 2005, Berger, Daniel wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ara.T.Howard [mailto:Ara.T.Howard / noaa.gov]=20
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:35 AM
>> To: ruby-talk ML
>> Subject: [RFC] traits-0.1.0
>
>>      - i like the word 'role' to describe what others are=20
>> calling traits.  the
>>        perl6 guys use this too so any future impl of 'traits'=20
>> (the other ones)
>>        as 'roles' wouldn't likely suprise anyone
>
> That seems reasonable.
>
>>      - 'traits' (the other ones) are of dubious value to=20
>> ruby.  it's been shown
>>        that they can be easily implemented in ruby - yet no=20
>> one is using them.
>>        their value, to me, seems largely academic and smells of
>>        hyper-abstraction (read obfusication).
>
> For Ruby they would only be useful where you want to mixin different
> modules with identical methods, while needing access to a specific
> access to a particular module's method that would otherwise have been
> overwritten.  Apparently this is such a rare occurrence that no one
> worries about it and/or works around it for those times when it does
> occur.

my thoughts exactly.

> Unless anyone objects, you should keep your "traits" package the way it
> is, and those other traits will be referred to as "roles" in Ruby
> (should anyone implement them and release it as a package and/or
> integrate it into the Ruby core).

yay!  +1 for less coding ;-)

-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| phone :: 303.497.6469
| renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting
| that they pass away. --aitken roshi
===============================================================================