The way roles/traits are described in [1] (and the pages it links to) make me think of Haskell type classes. Am I completely off in doing that? /M [1]: http://griddlenoise.blogspot.com/2007/05/traits-roles-as-alternative-to-abst... -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus@therning.org Jabber: magnus.therning@gmail.com http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 10:41 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
The way roles/traits are described in [1] (and the pages it links to) make me think of Haskell type classes. Am I completely off in doing that?
At http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/007026.html we find this passage, which sounds faintly familiar: | Now, how do roles/traits differ from interfaces? The primary | distinction is that interfaces only define behavior¹, whereas roles can | provide a dummy implementation. Dude, where's my language? -k ¹ For some value of 'behavior', apparently.
participants (2)
-
Ketil Malde -
Magnus Therning