trait composition conflict autoresolution

Stéphane Ducasse wrote

>> Hi all, I'm doing some work with traits, and I found something like this
>> case:
>>
>> Trait T1>>m1
>>     ^self requirement
>>
>> Trait T2>>m1
>>    doSomeStuff
>>
>> Class C1 uses: T1 + T2
>> [note, i'm not excluding m1 from T1 in the T1 + T2 composition.]
>> And the resulting:
>> C1>>m1
>>    doSomeStuff
>>
>> It is just ok, since the other m1 is just a mark for a requiredMethod, but I
>> find this a little weird, since do not follow the Trait definition. (at
>> least the one I read, maybe it changed!).  Wouldn't be better to
>> automatically add the exclusion at the composition?
>> Class C1 uses: T1 - {#m1} + T2

>not really. Or this means that the composition algo does not work well.
>Now since C1 redefined m1 in both cases you will have C>>m1 taking precedence over T1>>m1.
>I already forget but I discussed with tom and in javascript it proposed a different one
>than the ones we have in smalltalk and it was coherent too.

Well, what I tried to say is that C1 do not redefine m1, it gets T2>>m1 from the T1 + T2 composition.  
So, is there a conflict if I compose T1 + T2 and do not redefine m1 in the composition client?
Or is this "improvement"  OK? (explicit required methods do not produce composition conflicts),
since having a conflict between a real message implementation and a explicitRequirement marked message doesn´t make any sense


>Now there is a bug in pharo and squeak3.9 because if C1 is in fact the superclass
>of the class using the trait then the requirement is not considered as fullfiled or something like that.]

Do you mean that should be expected that a trait's required method shouldn't hide a superclass implementation for that message?

All my doubts about this issue are actually one: does a trait's required method any special behavior with respect to the composition (conflicts with equals named messages in the composition, overrides equals named messages in the composition's client superclass, etc), or these messages behave exactly like any other message?