As I already said, traits are stateless and Fame is only about modelling data, so I am not sure what traits would mean in this context.

But either we should have some way to "compose" new entities from multiple ancestors, or we should remove this static typing (or both), because currently it is very painful to model multiple programming languages jointly.
The result is what Guillaume posted some weeks ago: models with MANY instance variables nil or empty lists

Nicolas

On 24/11/2016 11:16, Tudor Girba wrote:

Hi,

We chose to have it statically typed because we are also generating the meta-model for other languages. But, it is true that it is less ideal in some edge cases.

We can think about removing this constraint, but the generation part is a relevant use case that we should take into account. That is why I believe that having a model organized around Traits would be suitable.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru

On Nov 24, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Nicolas Anquetil <Nicolas.Anquetil@inria.fr> wrote:


Why is Fame (and Famix) statically typed?

It always seemed strange to me in the Smalltalk context.

Do we really use/need this property?

(Because sometimes, it really sucks)

nicolas


--
Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR)
Project-Team RMod

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."




_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

--
Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR)
Project-Team RMod

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev