Ara.T.Howard wrote:
> 
> i'm having quite a time deciding what to do with traits.  i first 
> released as 'attributes' but some complained that
> 
> attribute 'foo'
> 
> and
> 
> class_attribute 'bar'
> 
> were just too long.  to remedy that i switched to 'trait' - a synonym
> for attribute.  however, as it's been pointed out, that name
> currently has a meaning in cs to some people.  my current thoughts
> are
> 
> random thoughts for traits/against attributes:
> 
> - trait is short

and used within C++

> - traits is a synonym for attribute (attr, attr_accessor, etc)

no need to use a synonym.

[...]

> random thoughts for attributes/against traits
> 
> - no confusion with other traits

yes

> - the alias 'has' can make 'attribute' plenty short (the current 
> version of traits uses this alias too btw.)

yes

> one other thing, the impl of traits was suprisingly hard.  the tricky
[...]

The code fragments (usage) I've saw are not thus attractive.

Code should looks simpler, more 'natural'.

-

This is an important project, but should be setup collaborative.

So, if you setup a ruby-forge project, people can contribute.

call it "attributes" or "attrib" or "has" - but not "traits".

> ps.  urls for project:
> 
> http://raa.ruby-lang.org/search.rhtml?search=traits 
> http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/traits
> 
> -a

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com