Interfaces without implementation are like a day without sunshine

P T Withington ptw at
Tue Oct 24 05:08:07 PDT 2006

On 2006-10-24, at 03:19 EDT, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

>> We are continuing to find this a useful structuring tool, enough so
>> that my users are complaining that 'interface' and 'implements' are
>> the wrong terms.  They want 'interfaces with implementation' to be
>> called 'traits' (because that is how they intuitively think about
>> them) and that makes me realize that 'implements' should be
>> 'inherits' (or something similar).
>> I don't like the idea of having 'interfaces' _and_ 'traits'.  That
>> seems overly complex.  It seems to me that an interface can be
>> described just as well by a trait with required (abstract) methods.
> True... as long as you allow multiple traits inheritance.
> What would be the differences with mixins then ?

Yes, we allow multiple inheritance of traits.  Our traits are the  
same as mixins, it just seems that trait is a more modern term (in  
line with classes implementing an ontology, as opposed to modeling  
ice cream flavors).

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list