Re: Re: How to build a real Trait thing without exclusion and renaming

Lukas Kahwe Smith schrieb:

class Talker { use A, B, C, D { smallTalk = A::smallTalk; // this says that if B, C or D implement smallTalk, it is ignored talk = A::bigTalk; } }

Well this is not just a different syntax, but an entirely different approach. In Stefan's proposal one had to explicitly handle every conflict manually. in your proposal you do not have to do this. I share this objection. Maybe a somewhat handier solution of my proposal would be the option to leave out the method name, but I'm not quite sure whether it is really readable:

class Talker { use A, B, C, D {

     B::smallTalk instead A, C, D; //to be read like: use B::smallTalk
                             // instead the implementations form A, C, D

} }

BTW Stefan: Whats the syntax for when you want to override a trait method with one inside the class definition? I guess one would use "self::" like so: class Talker { use A, B {

    B::smallTalk instead A::smallTalk;
    self::bigTalk instead B::bigTalk, A::bigTalk;
    A::bigTalk as talk;

} function smallTalk() { } } Hm, personally, I would leave this out. The notion is that class definitions will override trait methods in any case (even/especially if traits methods are conflicting). So it would be fine to have this one implicit. This would also avoid construction attempts like: A::bigTalk instead self::bigTalk, A::bigTalk;

Kind Regards Stefan