From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-02 15:21:39
David A. wrote:
> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> Absolutely not. A key trait of traits is that they're
> >> They create an association with that can be defined
> *after* the type
> >> argument is defined.
> > Surely a trait is *part of the *definition* * of an *entity* in a
> > wider sense.
> I think I just quite definitively disagreed with that
> assertion already ;^)
Would you disagree with Andy even if that "wider sense" was a GP concept? I
agree with Andy under that interpretation, a trait defines the local
neighborhood of a concept and its models.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk