From: Christoph <chr_mail@...>
Date: 2005-04-25T01:42:13+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

gabriele renzi schrieb:

>
> I'm not much into CLOS, but IIRC the basic approach is to linearize 
> the ancestors (not thinking of MOP, method combination and so on).
> I can agree this yields similar result to our mixin strategy, but I 
> fail to see how it shows mixins are MI.

Linearizing a method lookup of ancestor (sort of) graph is
 +  merging of ancestor graphs is the  hall mark of MI to me.

> It would at best show that CLOS' MI is similar to ruby's mixins.
> If I would talk about how Eiffel or C++ handle the problem differently 
> would that prove my they MI!=mixins, or would show that CL has not MI 
> or simply that there are diferent approaches to the problem?
>
> You snipped out (or I misquoted it) the part I was actually referring:
>
> >> Module#include qualifies as inheritance, no matter how one may try to
> >> hide it under a carpet. A dog with a leg missing is still a dog.
>
> The core idea of MI (to me) is the ability to inherit two things that 
> would need to be instantiated, while using mixins this is impossible.

This sounds more like C++'s idea of MI (to me).

/Christoph