ok, can you explain why inheriting like this wouldn''t make it rock solid? i don''t see how there can be a problem if there aren''t conflicting names in the inherited classes, sorry for these endless questions

quote:Original post by apatequil
pulls himself from this thread....you can't reason with someone who won't listen..

Ultimate irony. Here's what you are saying:

OO theory says that MI is bad, so you should not use it. You can confirm this by reading any OO book, or by taking an OO course.

Here's what I'm saying:

MI is bad in languages that don't implement it correctly, and that's what leads to the advice to not use it. The issue is not to avoid MI, but to fix the problems with it. IOW, it is *not* against OO theory.

Since you seem to think any OO book will support your position, here's a quote from a book about OO design sitting on my desk:

quote:Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp
Multiple Inheritance
A system in which a class can share the characteristics and behaviour of more than one direct superclass. CLOS supports multiple inheritance, in that a class can have any number of direct superclasses. This flexibility makes all sorts of class organizations possible, whereas single inheritance is limited to strictly hierarchical organizations. CLOS constrols the multiple inheritance by using a class precedence list, which unambiguously states the precedence of each class with respect to the others.

Quite clearly, there are OO implementations where having MI is A Good Thing, which serves the lie to your ridiculous claim that multiple inheritance is taboo in your wonderful world of OO purity.

If you're going to spread your religious bullshit around here, then make sure it's watertight first, else it *will* get taken to pieces, and it's quite clear you don't have the stomach for that.

[edited by - SabreMan on January 24, 2003 5:54:19 AM]

quote:Original post by apatequil
pulls himself from this thread....you can''t reason with someone who won''t listen..

We were all listening but you weren''t making any sense.