Re: Nice Interfaces == Traits ?

> Only you do not need to learn anything to start using interfaces in 
> Nice. It just happens that you can do more things with them than you
> can with Java interfaces.

NiceInterface <: JavaInterface ?

(Obviously we're talking about emphasis - emphasize the similarity with
Java or emphasize the additional functionality? I suspect we'll return
to this same question in other situations.)


> BTW, this shows that traits are not the same as Nice interfaces,
> since if I recall right they cannot be part of a hierarchy.

"It is important to note that our model allows traits to be composed
from other traits in the same way that classes are. But unlike classes,
traits do not have to be complete, which means that they do not have to
define all the services that are required by the incorporated traits.
Unconnected plugs of the constituent traits simply become plugs of the
composite trait."

Much of the motivation behind Traits is implementation reuse.


> >I'm not sure multimethods are well known outside of the circle of
> >language researchers ;-)
> Sure. So we need to document them, including how they can be
> specialized on interfaces.

Seems like we can present aspects of Nice from an OO perspective, and
from a multimethod/functional perspective. It almost seems as though
the choice of presentation has more to do with what we expect the
reader to already know as-it-does with the language feature. 





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn